Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Don't be a dick

Very good proposal. People will QQ, though. --Edru/QQ 05:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, people who QQ about this policy could theoretically be labeled dicks, and, if they're overly disruptive about it, they could be banned for asshattery. Either way though, the fact of the matter is that Armond is right, common sense and discretion (along with consensus) should always supersede policy, and, in fact, they should supersede the very need for policy. Anyone who violates NPA, SIGN (for an extended amount of time), anyone who vandalizes, basically every user-related offense (which is what policies should generally regulate) can be derived from this policy. *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this as a policy. I've seen it implemented in corporate settings to the benefit of all. It's kind of a lesson in learning how to play nice with others, and I do agree that this policy covers all the basics of user behavior, that has been so detailed in various policies in GWW that have caused so much disruption and controversy. It allows for a community consensus for any admins to base punitive action on, but allows for user accountability and gives them a chance to adjust their behavior accordingly. -- Wynthyst 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Iz gud anyone who doesn't like is scrub and needs to go drown in a puddle. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıę 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Grinch just won a PvE. I think he should share his pie. Armond 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Pie smells good..and looks good. What type pie? Calor (t) 20:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, shit. I'm out a job. --71.229 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for this policy(?)

• Is this proposed policy or guideline? Give the fact that it's very subjective in nature, it would seem to be more of a guideline, however its scope suggests policy. The wording also seems very anti policy in nature...
• The name needs to be changed because
  • Its lewd
  • It discourages people name Richard from hanging around here.

-elviondale (tahlk) 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lewdness... GW is rated Teen, so anyone who is browsing GW2W should be able to handle it. And I've seen the word "bugger" and "bastard" used in Guild Wars by NPC's before, so it's not ANet doesn't condone that sort of language.

Re: Richards... we need to ask ourselves, "do we really want anyone called Richard hanging around GW2W anyay?". I'm sorry, but someone had to say it (this is a joke, apologies to anyone called Richard) --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the term dick, while being a four letter word, is not really offensive enough to be considered lewd. Given all the alternatives that would really continue to convey the spirit behind the policy it is actually the least offensive that comes to mind. As far as it being subjective, I am very much in favor of policy that IS more subjective than the ones the are rigid and attempt to cover in detail all possible situations, and ultimately lead to more controversy, and are more likely to create the rigid "You've broken policy and must be punished" attitude I've seen too much of on GWW. I don't think it would be too difficult to gain a consensus if someone continually acts like a dick, thus giving admins the opportunity for punitive action. -- Wynthyst 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have to take a stand on the term. Its not necessary and seeks to convey its message solely by shock value. Jerk would be much better imo. Regardless of the rating of the game, I don't go around calling anyone a dick nor do I see calling someone that to their face happen often. I'm sure I'm not alone in this line of thinking. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We can do "Don't be an asshole" if you're comfortable with that. Or maybe "Don't be an Auron". Jk there, I just remembered the asshat userbox on his page. Anyways, I don't think Richard A. Username is gonna be pissed off if he sees this, because dick is lowercase, and he'd likely understand the meaning and take no offense. But I'm a Nick, so I wouldn't know. Calor (t) 04:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with whichever term is used as long as it continues to convey the spirit of the policy. As far as using shock tactics, sometimes that's what it takes, life isn't always or even usually politically correct and our attempts to make it so are destined to fail imo.-- Wynthyst 16:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not really a matter of being politically incorrect (which 'PC' a funny thing to call me [indirectly] since I still wish people a Merry Christmas and am almost as non-PC as one can get), rather its a matter of being offensive. Consider the meaning behind the word. -elviondale (tahlk) 16:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, most people end up seeing me as politically incorrect, with wishing a Merry Christmas and other things. And we all know the meaning begin the word. I'm perfectly fine with "dick", "asshole", "jerk", or "whiney, insolent, ten-year old brat". Or anything else that you can think of that conveys the message. Calor (t) 17:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironic... a policy which is an NPA in itself....58.110.142.135 04:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No more than "Guild Wars Wiki 2:Don't be a vandal" would be. --Edru/QQ 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be replacing NPA, which is a stupid policy anyway. Armond 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically this policy wouldn't be NPA unless you classified as a Dick, which this policy tells you not to do. Follow the policy and you don't get personally attacked. Great fit? Iitomo! ‽-(eronth) I give up 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also support this as an actual policy/guideline... it's a straight-up message to anyone inadvertently or purposely being a dick, and takes over for NPA quite nicely. Even if NPA is kept, this is still a really nice way to fill in the stuff NPA doesn't or shouldn't cover.

The other nice thing is, people can't throw this around as a threat. You can go to someone and say "I'm reporting you for NPA", spark an arguement, and get five people banned including yourself. Or, you can go to someone and say I'm reporting you for being a dick", and people can have a good laugh and be done with it, thanks to the "if you accuse someone of being a dick, then you're most likely being a dick yourself" clause. It's nice as a guideline, it's filled with... what's that thing... right, "common sense", and if worse comes to worse, generally disruptive users who aren't technically breaking policies can be banned anyway, rather then digging through every contribution and policy, trying to find a loophole in his loophole so he can be banned. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this as a policy, since it's (and should be) enforcable. And about the word, I made a humorous version back at GWW called GWW:Don't be a jerk, that might work (there's a movie named "The Jerk").reanor 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

the dick that wrote this policy violated the policy against being a dick, therefore we should rename this to dont be a horses ass and post a picture of harry reid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geist null (talk • contribs).

I vote we make this a guideline, with possibly a humor tag somewhere. While it's a worthy guideline, one can't deny that there is humerous implications in it.-- anguard 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate as an essay, like the Wikipedia version. I also think that it's too early to have official policies or guidelines. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support

I support this policy, however only if "Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Don't be a moron" is also passed.Bob fregman 22:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to assume that dick=moron. :) Lord Belar 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose: Don't be a dick (disruption policy), Don't be an idiot (obvious), and Don't be a pussy (the equivalent of Be Bold) :P *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that would work quite well. :P Lord Belar 05:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It might just. That would cover Disruption, prevent pointless escalation, and incorporate Ignore Policy. That would pretty much cover all the bases as far as user-related policies are concerned. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I might just have to write those up. Lord Belar 05:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking completely technically, "DICK" is probably the only one that needs to use borderline degrading words in it. :D "Be Bold" can be the equivalent of Be Bold, and something like "Use Common Sense" can fill in the "Don't Be An Idiot" spot. The other titles might actually be breaking the "Don't be a dick" policy themselves otherwise (policies breaking policies? Blasphemy!). -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 16:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed to "Don't be a moron", so it is less offensive to people:

1. People called Richard.
2. For the same reasons as the failed profanity policy on GWW (parents, etc).

—Ebany Salmonderiel 16:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Who calls Richard "Dick?"
2. No, that policy was shit. :P

Lord Belar 16:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Richards are used to seeing "dick" used as profanity, an insult, or whatever, so that really shouldn't be a problem. However, moron is probably a better word - similar meaning, less "profanity".-- Brains12 • Talk • 17:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think we should worry about "profanity," as guild wars is rated teen, and it's not like we're calling it the "Don't be a motherfucking bitch" policy. :P Lord Belar 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It was intentionally named for shock value. Keep it as is.

Also, GW2W:IDIOT should be the admin policy. Armond 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a personal attack on the admins? :P Lord Belar 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be saying that all the non-idiots are admins, making it a personal attack on everyone else. But then, you could say "Go look at the idiot policy, it tells you all about admins", so that'd sort of make up for it. GW2W:RfI ftw. Armond 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Armond 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Idiocy? And we could have an Idiot's noticeboard. :) Lord Belar 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Issues

While it's a bad idea to seek confrontation for the sake of confrontation, it's not always a good idea to avoid confrontation for the sake of avoiding it. While it's the case that if several people call someone a "dick", odds agood that it's true, the thing is, the odds are also good for it being a case of a group trying to silence an opinion they dislike. Thus what it acceptable needs to be clarified. Backsword 09:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave it to the sysops. If a bunch of people are really plotting to silence an opinion (unlikely), that's worth administrative attention. -- Armond Warblade 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in fact very likely, it's part of one of the most common ways of debating.

Leaving it to the sysops sit leaves the question: leave what to the sysops? Calling others names? Backsword 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, leave the entire situation to the sysops, because if you've got a small cabal forming to shut out other people, that's a problem on a content-based wiki. It's also not common - look at GWW or GW. Much more likely is that there will be a few people who want something to change, and present arguments about it, and people decide how they feel on it. -- Armond Warblade 08:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"common" is of course vauge, but I'd say it's common enough on GWW, despite not being allowed by policy. 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What is a dick?

This policy proposal dodges the most important part of the issue: Telling what a dick is. I am sure that different people have different opinions about this, leading them to different conclusions about whether this was breached or not. If, like the policy seems to imply, the judgement is up to the sysops, this should clearly spell out that enforcement happens at complete discretion of sysops (and it should also spend a word on what happens when sysops disagree and what a dick is).

PS: For all those contemplating anatomy-related responses, this is not the dick we talk about and we all know it, we also know all jokes you might make about it, so simply don't post. --Xeeron 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To me that is the best part of this policy. It allows each community member to define what a 'dick' is themselves. Trying to itemize the offenses that would make someone a dick is exactly what I feel this policy is trying to avoid..... creating a policy that becomes set in stone, that people point to and say... the policy says "This"... says nothing about "That"... so I will do "That" all day and there is nothing anyone can do/say, because it isn't a violation of policy. With this policy, what is being a dick is redefined by each and every person that interacts.. -- Wynthyst 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, organic development FTW.reanor 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

People know what a dick is, and deep down everyone knows when they're being a dick. There's no real need to try to define every possible situation that might arise (indeed, that's what this policy is actively trying to avoid). -- Armond Warblade 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your first sentence Armond. While everyone has their personal idea of what a dick is, those ideas are not similar across different people. --Xeeron 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And if we start trying to define everything, we'll get GWW all over again. Lord Belar 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the last sentence of my post again Lord Belar. If we opt not to define anything, it should be clearly spelled out that everything is left to sysop discretion. --Xeeron 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining specifically what a 'dick' is would set the term in stone, and would be the first step in defining everything and micromanagment. Surely Auron's feeling of when he's being a dick, and stepped out of line is quite different than, say, Anja's. Let people use their better judgment in situations where they may be a 'dick'. Calor (t) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I perhaps quote the Notes section? "The term "dick" in this essay is generally defined as "an abrasive and inconsiderate person"." I think that sums it up nicely. By the way, we need to switch the word "essay" for "policy" if this would be an actual policy. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer having a line in the text that says it's up to sysop discretion (and sysop actions can still be undone after discussion as normal) instead of trying to define the word in every detail. - anja 07:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a major point of this policy/essay is that it lets Sysops ban users who aren't technically breaking rules, but are still being, well, "dicks". A note would do nicely, or something of the sort... we need to make it clear that this isn't something you go accusing other users with ("your last comment sounded very dick-like, a sysop has been alerted"). But at the same time, make sure that Sysops can use this as a policy, if need be, at their own discretion. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections at all to adding a line making it clear this is a discretionary policy.-- Wynthyst 14:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy or essay

I agree with the sentiment of the article - I suspect there are few who don't. However, I am concerned that we're looking to make a policy of what is only an essay on wikipedia. And while I can't quite put my finger on why it isn't right; I know the name will only cause "it's ok", "no it's not" type of opinion arguments to flare up - repeatedly. As on the talk page for the essay on wikipedia - most of the talk is related to the name of the essay, the incredulity of users about the seriousness of something with such a name, and frankly tends towards offensive even for my taste (I like to think I don't offend easily).

Unfortunately, the name detracts from the content and intent of policies to stop such behaviour. More often people will focus on the name rather than the content of such a policy. I would rather this be left as an essay as it is on wikipedia, perhaps even referred to by actual policies; NPA, Disruption, whatever. I'd like to think there is maturity to understand this policy for what it is and not to bring up the discussion of the name again and again, but I fear, from my past observance of user behaviour, that it will. --Aspectacle 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to the name being changed, as stated previously, as long as the spirit of the policy is maintained. I do however strongly support it becoming a policy for all the reasons I've already stated.-- Wynthyst 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking further at the attitudes here and the concerns of those concerned I've had a go at merging a more restrained traditional policy with a bit of the attitude expressed in this policy and the content of the disruption policy. Please take a look at User:Aspectacle/NoDisruptiveBehaviour. I hope this starts out at striking a balance. --Aspectacle 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Acceptable social behaviour cannot be enforced through a policy. Nor does a reminder "be nice/not a dick" change anything. The wording "don't be a dick" can also be interpreted differently or misunderstood, it is also quite shallow, it says basically nothing else than "do not be an a**hole". What are the next suggestions in this line. "Be smart" - "make sense". This is just too basic. "Ignore All Rules" and "Be Bold" have a more specific meaning besides a reminder to behave when posting here. I also do not think a low level of language like "don't be a dick", "you suck", "STFU" and whatever is helpful in telling a person to step down, rather the opposite. Reminders about being more social towards others are futile, and for those who cannot do that, bans and NPA are already there. This "Don't be a dick" stuff might lead to more accusations and people being dicks than doing anything good. --Longasc 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This covers every policy ever created. Everything is simply a more specific variant. Its just difficult to enforce, but I see no problem having this if we have a relatively free admin structure. Lord of all tyria 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Disruption also covers everything, and sounds a lot more acceptable. Dick is good (that doesn't sound quite right....), but Disruption is better. Calor (t) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Dick > all. -- Armond Warblade 22:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "be reasonable". A good wish, but nothing more. Has the same effect (zero). But it might offend less people. Neither the suggested wording "don't be a dick", the intent of making people not being dicks has much substance, nor can it be enforced. Next we would be preaching common sense. I even think this proposal was more fun than really serious. :) --Longasc 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously disagree with your idea that it is unenforceable. I think that giving the sysops the discretonary power TO enforce it is going to be what makes it the perfect policy for GW2W. -- Wynthyst 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly correct. (I added a colon, hope you don't mind.) If people are going to be offended by the word dick, well, to be honest, too bad for them. I'm willing to bet that far over half the people that come here will have one, and the rest will know about it. We're not here to cater to people who've been sheltered all their lives. -- Armond Warblade 08:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone is truly shocked and appalled by the word, then they probably don't/can't play Guild Wars, and really have no reason to complain. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 12:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have yet to hear a single reason why the name of this is required or needed to be as it is, other than "you're a noob if you disagree" -elviondale (tahlk) 13:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Shock value. "Don't be a stinky poo poo head" doesn't really have the same effect. At the risk of violating the very policy I am advocating, I believe the phrase I am looking for is "QQ moar"? --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not shock value, but leet kiddie speak. Even kids can get over this language, it has no place on the Wiki. Neither in articles nor on talk pages. I also wonder what Wynthyst thinks Sysop should enforce with this policy, they already have the option to ban "dicks" without this. They do not need users confronting other users with a don't be a dick policy, they can decide that on their own. Nobody needs a special common sense policy to remind people to keep it civil, people can say that themselves if they want to keep tempers in check. Does anyone seriously think this policy makes the Wiki better? It does exactly nothing or causes more harm. Why is this needed, why should this be a useful and needed policy? --Longasc 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Except a special common sense policy is needed, because on GWW people were absolutely determined to follow each policy to the letter, and to be honest, if this policy didn't exist, people would be dicks simply because there's no policy telling them not to. This policy takes the place of 2-5 policies on user conduct that are totally unnecessary when compared to this. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GWW does not need this policy either to take care of "dicks". You are mixing in another debate about how policies are enforced and interpreted by some admins on GWW. They already banned some "dicks" at their discretion, and a certain person then started to play policies against the admin that banned him. Would "Don't be a dick" have stopped this person or given any more weight to the judgment of the admin? No personal attacks and no disruptive behaviour are already within the judgment of admins. Such a vague and easy to misinterpret and in itself slightly offensive policy does not add anything to that - except making people call other peple dicks after they found that policy, and then starting a discussing why someone is a dick or not. I do not see this as helpful, sorry. --Longasc 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your examples are very recent. When this policy was written up, admins still didn't have that power. This policy attempts to give that power to admins and eliminate the need for most other policies. What you are talking about is an ideal situation - no policies, just sysops. Unfortunately, the world is not ideal. -- Armond Warblade 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no point on discussing this further until an Adminship policy is approved, only then we will know how much discretion admins will have and if this is needed at all. -- Coran Ironclaw 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Just added a simple definition to satisfy those who say there isn't a rock solid definition with which to judge others by. If anyone feels that this is incorrect please feel free to change/modify/delete as you wish. this is a wiki after :P --Lou-Saydus 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of this policy is that it doesn't define it beyond a vague measure. That way we don't go into the GWW "List every possible thing that might happen" mentality. Lord of all tyria 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the definition i defined doesn't really cover every possible situation, that is up to the community. It just gives a guideline to follow. Like i said xD it needs work. --Lou-Saydus 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point. There shouldn't be a definition, if someone's being a dick, its usually obvious, and you don't get people saying "The policy says I can't do X and Y, so since I'm doing Z I can't be banned." Lord of all tyria 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I say a little definition wouldn't hurt, but it has to be an open-ended explaination. Make sure it's perfectly clear that just because it's not written down here, that doesn't mean someone's not being a dick. Just covering a few of the more common and explainable instances of Dickish behavior seems fine to me. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do it Redneck-joke style:

• You might be a dick if you have ever stolen candy from a baby.
• You might be a dick if your favorite phrase is "Schadenfreude."
• You might be a dick if you've ever told a young child that Santa is dead.
• You might be a dick if you've ever told someone from another country the wrong definition of a word, just to see them misuse it later on.
• You might be a dick if you've ever rickrolled anyone.
• You might be a dick if you've ever told anyone what Rule 34 means (don't look it up, trust me on this one).

... I have done a disturbing number of those (read: all), now that I think about it. Hmm. MisterPepe talk 22:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me you've done all of those Pepe... Calor (t) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy the rule 34 point, not if someone honestly wants to know. If you go 'round informing those that wouldn't want to, that's different. Backsword 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that sort of thinking is that policy can't be vauge, however vauge you make the policy document. People either get's blocked, warned, whatever for doing something, or they don't. You can't sorta block someone. Backsword 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this entire sort of thinking, in my opinion, is that this entire "Don't be a Dick" concept was originally written as an essay, to pretty simply explain where all of the other policies came from. If you look at it, pretty much all other rules on a wiki are corollaries of this essay, but this was never intended as an actual policy.

WP Soft-redirects to the essay, which comes from Meta. Thinking that this is a viable policy as written is simply absurd, and tacking on exact descriptions of what so-called "dick behavior" is turns this into something completely different. Most policies are pretty much this, but with much more exact descriptions of what is or is not encouraged/allowed - adding the description vastly weakens the power of this essay. IMO, pretty much any user conduct policy is a special case of this essay. It needs to be vague, or it loses its impact.

This is my favorite essay that anyone has ever written about a wiki, but I don't think it's a good policy - turning it into one, IMO, ruins it. It's perhaps the most important principle that you can understand, both on wikis and IRL.

It's meant to be somewhat humorous, as well, which is why my previous response to this was supposed to be funny. Perhaps it failed (hence the picture on my user page), but it was worth a try. Calor, perhaps the thing that told you that I had done all of those was the fact that I said I had done all of those? =P Backsword, Rule 34 is the most frightening thing on the entire interwebs, so shush =\

tl;dr - not a policy, shush. MisterPepe talk 05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Where rule 34 has failed, rule 35 will succeed. (translation: just because Don't be a dick isn't a policy is the exact reason we should make it one.) -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 06:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would this fail as a policy? -- Armond Warblade 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because don't be a dick is so basic. Too basic, in fact. Does the Wiki really a policy to remind people not to be dicks? Would it change anything? Make dicks stop being dicks? As a policy is so vague that you can accuse people easily to be dicks. Judging who is a dick is very subjective, leave that to admins and their discretion how to solve a problem and not to a lynchmob. It will see more abuse than it brings good for the Wiki. Leave it to admins to sort out real dicks. As an essay, it is GREAT, but as a policy it really ruins itself and worse. Someone already said that, I agree to that. --Longasc 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, this is a basic policy, but it covers the broad topic of harassment and related 'wiki-crimes'. And Pepe, I totally missed that little note. *Sighs* Calor (t) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it covers all the crimes. But I think the reason that it will fail as a policy is that it will never get consensus. Longasc has twice brought up reasonable concerns about how this policy would have a negative effect on site by the policy itself possibly being used as an attack - and no one has addressed or assuaged those concerns. I suspect because the proponents of this policy realise there is no way they can be. --Aspectacle 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be because we realize that the people who actually misinterpret the policy like that are failures. -- Armond Warblade 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is we? People thinking like you? You seem to value your judgement highly, but you just called me indirectly a "failure", thank you very much. I am afraid you should not be a dick, you just abused this dick thing in the very way I fear people would totally screw it up. Has this policy been proposed by some dickheadead kids? It is insulting and your arguments in favor of it are weak and consist of calling people failures? --Longasc 16:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This won't work as a policy for the reasons above, primarily, people not being able to agree on what a dick is. The whole idea is that the accusation isn't supposed to be made lightly, but people will throw it round, stray onto the verge of being a dick themselves and cause more problems than it solves. This relies on common sense, which the internet lacks. Keep in essay form though, if someone being an idiot goes "lol it isn't against policy", ban them for being an ass and show them here. Lord of all tyria 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) By setting down a definition, you have destroyed the entire purpose of this proposal. It's truly unfortunate, as it would have been a much better behavior modification tool than NPA, or any of the other specific policies that we are no doubt going to be strapped with.-- Wynthyst 07:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Don't be a dick" loosely translates to "don't do things that the community at large doesn't like". In that sense it's perfect. Although one might do something that some approve/like, you can still be a "dick" if the community at large does not. The vagueness in the definition is a blessing. The fact that this policy passes (if it does), proves that you have some leeway and that common sense outweighs set in stone laws. 84.31.240.253 11:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a great way to phrase "dick" and the outline of this policy. Calor 16:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Using that definition, if an admin goes on a banning rampage, banning anyone who breaks the slightest rule or policy with no regard for apologies or mistakes, then you can ban the admin for being a dick. That's something no other policy covers as far as I know (following the rules too closely getting you banned is not an official rule anywhere)... and it's not like it's something that could never potentially happen. Which is why I really like this as a policy/rule in general; it's not an all-encompassing rule, it's just the "mortar" between all the other policy and rule "bricks". -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed

It is clear from the discourse that GWW:Dick isn't going to make it to policy. Those which support the policy have been unable to address any of the concerns raised so concensus is impossible to reach and recent comments show there are few who actually seriously support it. I'm going to fail this policy, but I think it can continue on in the wiki as an essay - I think there is support for that. --Aspectacle 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of you to make that determination.... how about adding to the discussion at hand instead? I think you are totally wrong in assuming there are few who actually support this.-- Wynthyst 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was a bit strong, but I wanted to see if the policy heading to rejection because of the impossibility of concensus could bring supporters to answer concerns raised on the page. A meta-discussion of the other discussions, if you will. The above topic was first real attempt to change the policy to help us doubters. It gets a mixed reaction because it tries to stand on the middleground for this policy; it ruins the name calling punch of the policy required for the supporters and yet still leaves concerns open for those of us who can't quite get over what the policy could do to the community. That doesn't bode especially well for any other mods which would be desirable for those who conservatively like their policy to come with a little more definition and a little less NPA.

Wynthyst... anyone... can you think of any way that will stop this policy from being used improperly? Can you provide an assurance that its enforcement won't degenerate to name calling? Can dick be fairly and clearly defined for users to whom this policy is directed? How can the policy be changed to include these things if it looses its punch to do so? Most importantly can there be a middle ground to stand on, a concensus position, for this policy? --Aspectacle 10:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to simply make it clear that being a dick is a bannable offense, but that doesn't give other users the right to accuse people of it? If making it an essay ends up being that option, then I'm all for it, I just think it should be perfectly clear to editors, vandals, etc, that "being a dick" is a good enough reason for someone to ban you. Having this be an actual rule seems like it would work in that manner; the downside being the possible paradox effect. ("by accusing so-and-so of being a dick, you're a dick yourself, so I'm banning you. Also, I'm banning myself for banning you for being a dick.") It needs to be loose, but at the same time, crystal-clear that there is no loophole in the system.

Perhaps make it an "essay" or whatever you want to call it, but make sure it's clear that you can get banned for breaking it? Either way, I think it should have rule number one be, users should never accuse users of breaking this. Admins can use it for a ban as a last resort (I.E., there's no other policy that covers the user's actions). "First rule of DbaD; you don't talk about DbaD." -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to make ANY policy here impossible to abuse in one way or another. Trying to do so only creates a bigger problem. The more highly defined policies become the deeper people who are looking to violate policies for the sake of violating policies will dig. So... saying that this proposed policy is doomed to fail because it may be misused/abused is just nonsense. This is actually a concept that is used in real life, corporate human relations situations and actually works great. Unfortunately there seem to be too many people here who just refuse to believe that common sense and community can effect any sort of change among the population. That makes me truly sad. -- Wynthyst 06:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've personally always felt the point of this essay was that it wasn't a policy and that it didn't need to be one - if you follow the principles outlined in the essay, all of the policies on a wiki should flow naturally from that. And by "essay," I mean "something cool that you should read and follow but has no actual policy-type standing because it's freaking common sense." Hell, it's the Golden Rule - if your Kindergarten teachers missed that, then reading this essay isn't going to suddenly make you a well-functioning member of society. It's a reminder of the things we've known for a long time, and sometimes just have to step back and make sure we're still paying attention to.

That's why I don't want to see this be a policy. MisterPepe talk 06:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"common sense and community can effect any sort of change". Empty rhetoric can often be highly effective. I'd hope few people doubts that. But the question isn't that, but if it's a desirable procedure. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Backsword . 10:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but I see such an irony in that comment, Pepe, as I skipped kindergarten. As an essay or even a guideline to read, this would be a good voluntary reminder to users occasionally. And empty rhetoric can be effective, but can also be just that: empty and without a meaning. Calor (t) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

/facepalm MisterPepe talk 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be taken as a threat of physical, real world violence, which is a one-month ban and stripping of any extra user rights. Nah. Calor (t) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To Wynthyst. Yes, there are people who will try to violate rules - I agree. But having an open policy to allow for sysop discretion doesn't necessary mean that this particular definition is the right approach. An open approach, a catch all, for stopping childish, egotistical behaviour can be built into another policy, which (while it'll lack the awesome punch) will probably be more respected. Your reference to corp HR is fairly good, however it would be a cold day in hell if any of the big corps I've worked for had an HR policy using the word dick or anything like it. :) I'm sad too that I can't have faith in the wiki community. I'm all for WikiLove and try to be a considerate contributor. But this isn't a work place and from what I've seen I find myself agreeing with the penny arcade view on what anonymity does to normal people. :( --Aspectacle 04:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And I quote: "If Karlos breaks a policy, it deserves to be broken". NOw, apply the same logic pls to this policy. Nukleaer VII 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The short and long of it

is don't be a dick. Simple as that. Don't piss people off, don't troll, don't intentionally act like an idiot, whatever you want to call it. I've not been active on wiki very much lately, but it seems that a lot of people simply can't grasp this concept.

I defy someone to find a better behavior policy than this. -- Armond Warblade 09:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's a social truth that being disliked will have negative consequences, and it makes sense to inform people about that (tho' one would hope that in wouldn't be needed), that's for an essay, not a policy. Just because something is common does not mean that everyone find it desirable, or wants to make it absolute. Backsword 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alot of ppl cant most ppl on Guild Wars it self are dicks (no offense) the wiki isnt as bad but idk. I think that the page has a point, if u r mean there are consequnces (such as the fact of CIB - Cloud Is Bad - which is a small group of ppl who go against a certain someone in GWW & GW) so i think the page puts it straight. Also another thing is the noob situation in GW is that clasified as being a dick when u pick on noobs, because i kinda think it is.--Shadowphoenix 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

CIB	This user urges you not to invite or speak to Cloud Swiftshadow

I want it known that Jesus supports this policy. -- Armond Warblade 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude Wtf why are you offending my religion for no reason, why do you have to be an atheist like that!?!?!?!? -- Ninja Dragon 04:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you take that as an insult to Christianity, then you're taking it way to seriously. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits or Disscussion Pages?

Is this stuff edits, talk pages, or both? If it's in the talk page suck it up. If it's in the wiki, its goodfaith...

99.99% of the time it's talk pages. In the non-talkspace, it's just vandalism. And harassment such as that which this policy tries to stop is the kind that drives potentially valuable contributors away from the wiki, and destroys the friendly environment that a wiki is supposed to be. Calor 19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition (2)

The definition section seems a little patronising and unnecessary in general. Do we really need it, since the rest of the article sufficiently defines what a "dick" is with no solid definition required. It's best to be vague with this sort of thing. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a definition. I don't know why people want one :S Lord of all tyria 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Something bugs me

This policy, essay, draft, whateva, defines a "dick" as a person who is in a disagreement with the rest of the community. Maybe I am being paranoid, but isn't that against everything a wiki like this stands against? By giving the rule to a group whom happen to agree, no matter is right or wrong, aren't we risking our position as a "democracy-free" wiki? Please enlighten me. Nukleaer VII 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this article isn't to govern content, it's to govern user interaction. All content of the wiki is fair game. --66.45.173.98 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A person doesn't have to disagree to be a dick. It's mostly about how he phrases things.

What they say can be totally valid, completely relevant, and something everyone agrees with; as soon as he starts insulting everyone around him, he gets ignored. See also; Raptors, BahamutKaiser, Readem, etc.

You can disagree all you want. You only get in trouble with this policy proposal if you don't focus your disagreement on content alone and start being an asshole. -Auron 14:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the difference between disagreeing, and being disagreeable, to put it simply. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Jioruji. A guideline called "Disagree without being disagreeable" would go a lot further than this article will. —Tanaric 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the tile of this proposal policy needs to be changed... -_- Alreajk 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nahh.... Calor 03:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's just a special something to citing GW2W:DICK. --71.229.204.25 08:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"dick"

Why would you create a policy with cussing in it? Wouldn't "don't be a jerk" be more appropriate?Alari 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

we stole it from wikipedia, title and all. And "dick" isn't a swear, at least in the majority of circles. Calor 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Used in the context is is used here it's a swear insult.Alari 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Insult != swear. Calor 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people prefer to have this with "dick" in it because it's being blunt. Some would prefer another name -- Don't disrupt, Disagree without being disagreeable, and whatever. Nothing's been decided yet because noone is active here anymore; until we get more Guild Wars 2 info. -- pling | ggggg 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to consider the wording, jerk is inaccurate. It would actually be best to rename this policy to "Don't be condescending." But it just won't have the oomph effect of "Don't be a dick". -- ab.er.rant 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And all in all, if people insist on calling it a curse or swear word, remember. Guild Wars is rated T, Guild Wars 2 will most likely get the same rating, and by extension, the Wiki should have the same rating. If your parents complain that the wiki is ruining your childhood, then why the hell are you on it? You're either purposely ignoring the game rating, which makes it your responsibility; or you don't play the game, in which case you've no reason to be here. I still fully support this as a policy/essay in it's current form; the blunt title is very important. Sort of like "you can look for a loophole, but you're not going to find one". As opposed to "don't be disagreeable", which makes it sound like you could be an agreeable asshole and get away with it. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, the name is precisely "Don't be a dick". It's not calling anyone a dick, so this policy can only offend you if you break it and/or identify yourself as a "Don't be a dick" violator. Similarly, since this policy doesn't encourage disciplinary enforcement, that insult would be your punishment.reanor 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I swear, the next time someone asks for a definition of a dick, I'm going to post pictures. Lord Belar 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

what's a dick plspostpxkthnxbai? nuke7 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:71.229_dick.jpg --71.229 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:User Lord Belar Dick n' friends.jpg Lord Belar 02:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

reanor 02:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a more pictures here and here. Seriously though, what about Guild Wars Wiki:Etiquette? -- Gordon Ecker 03:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Don't be a Dong"? nah, I think DICK is the way to go, but only if we put mr. cheney's pix in the policy page, with the caption "C'est un Dick". nuke7 09:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Or we could have pictures like this ^_^ ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 04:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, we need that right along with this policy. Imma gonna write it. nuke7 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol at izzy's picture ending up here --Wild 11:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Even if his name is Richard, that particular picture selection shows a political bias that is inappropriately contemporary. If you insist, use a picture of Millhouse. Otherwise simply leave it out. --Max 2 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

His name is Richard. So he's a Dick. Who cares about politics. This page is more about humour than anything else, either way. Just leave it in. Think we should get more people on this before we just take it out,... --Naoroji 17:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I undid it; whether you find it funny or not isn't the case, Naoroji. :) A Wiki should remain neutral on topics; politically offensive jokes (whether against republicans or democrats) should not be allowed, seeing as how they do more harm than good (if any good at all). --Amannelle 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually,... Mtew was already out of line by simply moving it out of the article without discussion. I reverted the article to it's original state. All you now did, Amannelle is start a revert war D: If I revert it back now,... Which I really should, since that's the article's original state. But, other than that:

1. His name is Dick. The caption in the thumb doesn't imply him being a 'dick', but instead leaves it up to interpretation.

2. Humour is of great importance =).

3. You Americans should lighten up on your politics, either way,... xD Lol.

And yes, the 3rd point wasn't serious. Still, I say that the picture should stay in. --Naoroji 17:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm an american and I feel that any form of humor is usually better than many other forms of communication(other than perhaps 'yo mama' and 'dead baby' jokes)...espesially political humor. Zolann The Irreverent 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He didn't remove it, he hid it so it may be discussed. :)

1. The caption reads "A dick". I don't exactly know WHAT you consider to be more to the point than that. :P

2. Humor is wonderful (and has many health benefits as well), but a site like this should not indulge in political humor and religious humor, but remain neutral to both.

3. Naoroji, I'm a little disappointed in you; I thought you were more open-minded than that. :(

The point of the article is essentially telling people what not to be (or how not to act); putting a picture of ANYONE in there automatically implies that they are a model for how not to act or what not to be, unless the caption specifically states otherwise. Again, I think it is an unnecessary addition to the article, and have wanted it gone for quite a while now (Mtew finally did what I've been wanting to do, so now I am standing up for his actions). ^_^ That's why. --Amannelle 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

First, I did not remove the material. I deactivated it.

Second, I did discuss it first. My objection above sat for three days without response before I moved on it. I even suggested an alternative that would have been better. (BTW: I am a registered democrat so I do understand the reference.) More people are likely to agree that Richard Millhouse Nixon was a 'dick' in the sense meant here. But even that would be inappropriate. --Max 2 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You made it sure it didn't show up in the article. To the casual eye, it would seem 'not in the article', as in, removed. But sure, I'll give you that one. @ Amannelle; I'm sorry, but if I hear every now and then about stuff that happens over there,... A woman and a man falling in love but they suddenly hate eachother after they find out one's democrat, the other republican,... xD I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous lol. --Naoroji 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It was deactivated so interested people could see WHY it was removed without bothering to check the discussion page. You almost certainly hit 'undo' without bothering to check what was actually done. The fact that you accused me of not discussing it first even though that discussion was clearly started on the left margin a few lines above is disturbing. This is almost exactly what I expected. Even whan I follow the rules exactly, there will be people like you who will squawk. --Max 2 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a two-year-old dead policy proposal with an image that doesn't make any difference either way. Why the hell do any of you care? If someone's "removed" it (whatever the definition of "remove" you wish to use), is there actually any need to make a fuss over it? pling 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it shows that the actual wiki culture is in fact different from what it is alleged to be. Where the claim is that something should be discussed before being reverted, the actual policy is to destroy the work of others and yell and scream about how bad the creative person has been. It is particularly relevant here because someone (NOT me) was being 'a dick'. It also shows that some of the rules are flouted without consequence and that raising objections in line with those rules produces hypocritical activity.

I'd like to know what is actually expected and not having to guess at what is going to produce a disruptive reaction that I will be blamed for.

More than anything I hate hypocrisy and that picture used in that context was very hypocritical.

--Max 2 21:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about this again...? Zolann The Irreverent 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we have nothing better to do and are anxiously waiting for GW2 info? Reaper of Scythes** 22:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right on target! --Max 2 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Or, you can sit back and laugh, like me, with a bag of popcorn.--Corsair@Yarrr 23:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really on either side of politics, but I am well aware that Wikis practically brag about their neutral stance on things, and how every article should be fair to every angle. In order to do this AND incorporate humor, the humor cannot be about: Religion, Politics, Race, Nationality, or Culture. Sure, it's great for everyone to have opinions, but to actually incorporate those opinions into an article while blatantly going against this "stance of neutrality" seems to be going a little bit far. :) My simplest wish is that it be removed. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but I feel neither side should be "viewed" in such a way on this site or any site that wants to use proper online etiquette. ^_^ Thanks! --Amannelle 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I just added it to the article as a little joke, I wouldn't have done had I expected all this arguing to crop up :S QUIT BEING DICKS Y'ALL. One thing I would like to ask though, is anyone here actually offended by the image, or just worried that someone might be offended? (I'd also just like to point out that the caption read "A Dick." and not "A dick.", which is the difference between light political satire and crude humour). --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was actually rather offended (and quite hurt) by it since I try to emphasize political neutrality towards each party and make my judgments based on input from both, and I thought Wikis were neutral as well, and when I saw that I was actually extremely surprised... I mean, if this kind of "humor" is allowed on a wiki that is focused on a GAME, what could wikipedia or other wikis be filled with? I'm not a republican, though I'm not really a democrat either, but nonetheless he has done some good things for my country, and a single capitalized letter does not change its meaning to me, though you are welcome to see it that way. However, it's disrespectful to try to uphold such types of humor, and I honestly expected better of you, Santax. :( --Amannelle 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I thought it was inappropriately contemporary, especially since the classic reference and first choice for this is Richard Millhouse Nixon (a.k.a. tricky dick). --Max 2 16:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Against

I am against this policy. I don't see why we should have something like this - if we're planning to have a No Personal Attack... I don't see what it can't cover, that this does.... I think we just need to modify a Npa to include attitudes and well more so things concerning disruption, trolling, etc. should be included in that one. Because to me, if you're trolling someone, you're basically attacking them, having them fall for your bait. Ariyen 04:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sort of agree there. Trolls are indeed basically attacking someone (or more than one) in specific, by trying to lure them into an argument amongst themselves or a PA against the troll. Alter the NPA policy to encompass trolling/other forms of "being a dick". On the other hand it might require altering on a scale that they should be kept seperate, though that is up for discussion. - Infinite - talk 05:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we make this a thing

? -Chieftain Alex 19:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)