Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a whiny bitch (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus, leaning towards keep now that it's been userfied. This was a difficult discussion to parse, not least because the author userfied the essay in the middle of the debate, rendering some of the earlier !votes problematic to consider. The main issue here is the application of WP:NPA. The community has always granted userspace essays much more latitude than those in project space, however there was a significant minority of editors who felt that this was a violation of WP:NPA no matter which namespace it was in. So, while the !votes after userfication were mostly for keeping the essay, there were not enough to definitively call this a consensus to keep.--Aervanath (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MZMcBride/Don't be a whiny bitch[edit]

Second nomination: previous MFD closed as "keep" while only 7 users had !voted explicitly to keep, 12 users felt that it did not belong in Wikipedia space with a variety of delete, userfy and delete or userfy !votes.

It is my opinion that this "essay" (if it can be called that) is nothing short of a personal attack when addressed to someone and should not live in WP space. –xeno (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Author has since userfy'd to User:MZMcBride/Don't be a whiny bitch. I would withdraw the MFD, but there were many calls for outright deletion so I gather it should run its course? –xeno (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As xeno says, when used in WPspace is a personal attack. We done need wiki-space articles/essays that we can link to as a way to get around calling somebody that themselves (for example, if editor A were to call editor B a "whiny bitch" that would be a blatant personal attack. Likewise, anything linking to this essay in a similar context would be the same thing in my opinion. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPA, userfy at least. –xeno (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The assertion that this violates the No personal attacks policy is outrageously silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • *cough* WP:DICK *cough* BJTalk 19:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a LOT more to WP:DICK including explaining its purpose and the intent. Maybye if this had some expansion other than just being an linkable attack in the wikispace it might not be a problem. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. We have all felt this way from time to time but having this in WP space is an extremely bad idea. --John (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And still delete even from userspace. I can't imagine a circumstance where this would achieve anything positive. --John (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whiny bitch" is not synonymous with "Dick". Redundant to other, better essays. Delete or move to userspace. Majorly talk 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no room for slanderous remarks on Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since "whiny bitch" has no specific legal meaning, it can't be slanderous. Keep. DS (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We already have the "Dick" policy. This goes beyond the nature of that policy into a darker area that does not fit within the spirit of Wikipedia. KnightLago (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KnightLago. "Whiny bitch" is particularly nasty and contrary to the collegial environment we should have here.--chaser (away) - talk 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still delete. This is just incompatible with collegial editing. Count me one idiot unappeased [1].--chaser (away) - talk 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy - I wouldn't particularly mind this in userspace, but it's inappropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. As there's so little content to it however, I don't think we would lose much by just deleting it. Terraxos (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, now it's been userfied. Terraxos (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete. In light of the obvious fact that a number of editors are reasonably offended by this phrasing, I consider that the drafter's insistence on maintaining this essay, particularly in Wikipedia space, and the resulting need for MfD discussion does not reflect the best collaborative attitude toward his colleagues, and hope he will reconsider the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong userfy (definitely not delete) for now. Actually, I think it's a good name for a policy (no more or less inflammatory than "don't be a dick," which is also a good policy.... well, ok, maybe a tiny bit more inflammatory, but who's counting) but, to be honest, there's not much useful content there now. I clicked on it hoping for some interesting commentary and such, but I didn't find much there. No problem with it being an essay in userspace, however; plenty of users have more offensive stuff than this in their userspace. I don't even want to know what I've got sitting around in mine. Politizer talk/contribs 05:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find anything useful for the encyclopedia here. At least WP:DICK has some advice on how to deal on avoiding being one.--Lenticel (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating my vote.--Lenticel (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy We definitely need to keep this around, I haven't even had a chance to use this on AN or ANI yet. Mr.Z-man 05:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this showing up as a red link with nothing in the deletion log for me? (Edit: Oh, I see. Link fixed.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: It serves a purpose, just like WP:DICK but should be used with caution. Probably doesn't belong in WP: space Toddst1 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI it has already been userfy'd by the author. –xeno (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is more of a slap in he face and a personal attack than advice. Xclamation point 17:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rename to less offensive name - I'd personally call this a attack on anyone who complains. There are more politer ways of saying what is on this page. --  Punk Boi 8  talk  19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen several people above saying that this should be deleted because it would be rude to cite to someone in an argument (implying that they're a whiny bitch). But who says it's gonna be used like that? Just like DICK, it can be a useful guideline if I stumble upon it myself and read it and decide not to be a whiny bitch in the future. I would be offended if someone cited "don't be a dick" in an argument to imply that I was a dick; that doesn't mean that I find it a useful guideline for myself. Politizer talk/contribs 19:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dont be a dick is actualyl cited in arguments though and with the explanations that it has makes it useful if necessary. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See [2] Chris

lk02 Chris Kreider 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sorry. I've just returned from 20 months ban, I've changed my vote to rename to more approriate name as I honestly believe this article could have a politer name. --  Punk Boi 8  talk  04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have had to change my vote now it is userfied, it was a bit inappropratly written for W space. This is certainly something that many would want to say to others on wikipedia, although some may not welcome having it applied to them. We need to start this MFD off again as it will not be clear who was voting for what. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a clear question, but I conclude, I guess, that this is permissible in userspace. For a broader discussion of that issue, though, a relisting is, per Graeme, in order; the mingling of arguments about why this should go altogether and why this should go only from project space make it exceedingly difficult to determine for what course a consensus exists and necessarily render dubious a straight "delete" close. Joe 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would notifying the users who weighed in prior to the userfication suffice? –xeno (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should do! Otherwise we are going for a moving target, give the early shooters a second shot at the debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look non-partisan enough? -> Subj: Regarding an MFD you've participated in // Re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a whiny bitch (2nd nomination). The page was recently moved into userspace by its author. The MFD continues, however you may wish to revisit your position based on this new information. <- –xeno (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that'll help clear things up; having tens of users come back, strike their previous comments, and make n ew comments/!votes will make it pretty hard for any admin to wade through the discussion and judge what the consensus might be. I move to do a procedural close and, if necessary, start a new MfD of the userfied version (for the record, my vote would still be keep). Politizer talk/contribs 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to give our admin corps more credit =) there's really only a handful of people who commented before the userfication. –xeno (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good advice. --B (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People voting "delete" yet again may need to read this remarkable essay. --C S (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the exact same rationale used last time: Essay tag at the top clearly states it's a user's opinion, and WP isn't censored, so the language is a non-issue. GlassCobra 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that "Wikipedia is not censored" does not mean that everyone is encouraged to say anything, at any time, regardless of whether it unnecessarily and gratuitously offends other Wikipedians. Overuse of this maxim, or mantra, is quickly becoming a pet peeve of mind; not necessarily in this instance, I find that simply uttering these four words has become a substitute for, rather than a component of, reasoned analysis of an issue presented. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "... does not mean that everyone is encouraged to say anything, at any time ..." Um, who said that? I think what most people are missing is the underlying message of the essay, something that I know you're smart enough to have gleaned from it. The fact that it uses the word 'bitch' is what everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch over, which is rather silly. When there is hysteria over the use of a word like 'bitch,' it's easy to make the leap that people are fighting to censor things they deem inappropriate (or even harmful to the children). And that's when it's important to remind people that Wikipedia isn't (and shouldn't be) censored. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am shocked at your language. I know for a fact that not everyone in this discussion wears panties and your insinuation that everyone does is nothing short of a personal attack. Cool down your language or you may be blocked for excessive pantifying. --C S (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many people have told you that this phrasing is gratuitously offensive, and that if the essay is used in the future as it appears intended to be used, the comments using it will constitute personal attacks. Although I am not sharply offended and cannot speak for those who are, I believe the grounds of offense is a combination of disdain for unnecessarily rude language, coupled with concern for the perceived sexism of this use of the word "bitch" as derogatory to women (and no, our popular culture does not treat this as the female equivalent of "dick", although personally I have never cited WP:DICK either and do not expect I ever will). Your position appears to be that you don't care if people are offended, in return for little or no benefit in return; and that because "Wikipedia is not censored", you don't have to care. This attitude does not promote the spirit of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors that is necessary to build an encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure I'm just imagining this, but speaking of attitude, I'm getting more than a whiff of it from directions other than from MZMcBride. --C S (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fails WP:NPA since no one is named. (but what do I know?)— Ched (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete. That wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean that we have to post everything offensive because we can. This page is still encyclopedic and will simply be used to create more division. Had this page offer advice on how to avoid being one or stop from being one then I might be more inclined to keep. But for now this is simply gradeschool namecalling.--Lenticel (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and quit whining over it. Coolgamer (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful to the encyclopedia and, yes, "bitch" is considered offensive to some people: I wouldn't want this to be labelled "Don't be a whiny Spick", so why should we allow some other perjorative to be used. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We allow wide lattitude in userspace, especially for prolific contributors. This easily fits into what's allowed. If the user kept pointing people to this, this there might be a behavioural problem to worry about, but this is not the case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CSD#G10, a page used only to disparage whoever is told to read it. (Not speedy delete since we're discussing it here now.)  Sandstein  22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Not the most pleasant essay of all time, but it does not rise to a problematic level of incivility. Perfectly appropriate for user-space. Reyk YO! 04:17, 7 February 2009 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_a_whiny_bitch_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136450254"