Wikipedia talk:Don't be high-maintenance/Archive 1

Great essay

• applause* Great essay. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Cool. Addhoc (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• I am very offended by this, and will be storming off in a huff. Friday (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww puh-lease don't go. Whatever Uncyclopedia are offering you, we'll double it. PLUS we've got barnstars! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, very nice. Congratulations to the author. Moreschi2 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Saw this at AN/I. So neat I have just created WP:DIVA to aid in easing this essay into general usage. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Lol, this reminds me of Jaranda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.54.207 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• This is also sage advice for areas of life other than wikis. SuW (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• This is the best essay I've ever read. We need more of this kind of thing. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Too true, too true

What a good essay! As a declaration of interest, I've been involved with two individuals who fall within this category and are mentioned on the corresponding WP:AN/I discussion today, one of whom was Giano. Frankly, I found both individuals extremely hard work to deal with; part of the problem is that because Divas do good work they then start pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, including what are supposed to be the core policies of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Admins who have become their friends or admirers start to become their protectors; one only has to look at Giano's block log to see how he has effectively never been held to account for behaviour which, in anyone else, would have earned lengthy blocks. It's no wonder that the Diva-like behaviour of acting like a three year-old throwing a tantrum is, ultimately, the inevitable result.

The other side of the coin to the argument 'they do much good work for WP' is that they get sidetracked into unproductive tilting at windmills: posting on WP:AN/I, hunting down sock-puppets, POV-pushing, and abusing anyone whom they self-identify as their enemies. Yes, they post good articles, but they also lead to an atmosphere of casual abuse which is a complete turn-off for other editors and serves to drive them away.

So: Admins (especially); don't encourage these people, and don't post a message of condolence on their pages when the inevitable Wiki suicide note appears. Two Admins, for example, have posted their own sad notes of condolence on a Talk page on which the individual concerned has posted the terms 'scum', 'shit', 'piss', 'cunt', 'lackey', 'ignorant assumption', 'fuck', and 'stalkers' directed at his fellow editors.

As for the Divas, who gives a toss about their sad battles? Not only will we get on fine without you, we'll get on better. I don't care about Giano's IRC excitement because I keep my nose clean, so I don't see any reason why I should appear on it; and anyway No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. And as for the other gentleman, who's just gone off in a huff because two Admins refused to allow his POV-pushing on a minor article - I mean, come on! Why should anyone post anything on these individuals' Talk pages other than - 'You are not the centre of the universe; grow up'? --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The flipside: is Wikipedia sacrosanct?

Sometimes people that have a lot to offer and have offered a lot in the past leave for rather good reasons. I have seen scientists with a rather rare expertise who wrote about their own field reverted by freshmen in some other discipline who preferred to see their rather superficial understanding broadcast as the ultimate wisdom. Or the experts were simply told that this contribution was not 'good enough' for wiki and their stories were deleted by people who did not even understand what they were deleting. And yes I have seen experts leave in disgust.

I suppose they were 'Divas'? And I suppose I am a Diva for even questioning whether this is such a good thing for wikipedia? After all anyone that criticises wiki must be a 'troll' or a 'diva'. Wikipedia must be infallible. Jcwf (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The "flip-side" or "devil's advocate" is of course good to scrutinise this analogy. However, to be fair, the circumstances you discribed were perhaps not good descriptions of wikiDiva-like behaviour. The previous post by Major Bonkers describes an example that seems more fitting, or the case of the admin JzG. You described people that have actually left the project - as opposed to people that threaten to leave the project unless they're praised and acknowledged or given preferential treatment - such as admins who want to be allowed to break civility rules dozens and dozens of times or abuse their admin privilages - or else they'll leave because people "aren't respecting them enough". Expert scientists are accountable to the same set of rules as anybody else, rules such as providing sources for their claims - not being incivil - not abusing their admin privilages - being open to discussion - not wheel-warring - not violating the three-revert-rule - following the dispute resolution processes. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia has its fair share of POV pushers that would I'm sure silence out an 'expert' on a subject - but that is no reason to misbehave. In short, a Diva is probably somebody that believes they're entitled to extra special treatment - when in fact special attention has been given to the fact that admins are "just like regular users" but with a few more buttons, or are people with "mops and buckets and aren't any different". Rfwoolf (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This ideology of equality, which holds that no particular editor "is more important than other editors," is really a vicious flaw in WP--it is largely the motivation that caused one of the WP founders to break off and form Citizendium. Was that an instance of "Diva-like behavior"? It's simply a fact that some editors are a lot more important--or at least more valuable as contributors--than others. They usually know it, too. When someone who simply knows more than other editors about some subject is forced to spend hour upon hour of discussion to refute a POV-warring idiot there is a problem. When basic familiarity with a subject demands the simple deletion of a paragraph, but the change requires hours of effort, there is a problem. Of course, there is no easy solution. But this essay seems to be unaware of the issue, which--it seems to me--is really the most critical one on WP. How do we keep the closed-minded idiots from driving off the better-educated? Calling the latter divas is far from an answer. —Jemmy_tc 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. This essay's psychological stereotype is almost comically absurd. The "diva" is merely a person who is fed up with wiki-war bullshit, and just wants their edits to stick. The essay assumes the person is "more about getting their way than getting it right" but, though this is possible, it is just as likely that the "diva" is right, and dealing with an obstinate moron. It is also likely that the "diva" who returns "with an improved attitude" will simply, in the future, allow the more obtuse and insistent editors to have their way--their attitude "improvement" will consist in their realizing that no contribution here, no matter how good, is guaranteed to survive; that nobody will help them protect it; and that engaging in any controversy is likely to waste more time and effort than they care to donate. In other words, they will lower their expectations of "the community." This means less conflict, for sure, but less effort as well. It would be better of editors could expect their contributions to survive unscathed and even improve--to expect some form of security. —Jemmy_tc 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading this essay, I wondered if it applied to me; after all, a few months back I grew angry over how I was being treated, threw a fit & went on a Wikibreak. However considering my experience carefully, I saw that it actually didn't. First, anyone who has contributed to Wikipedia for more than a few months will agree that there are some unpleasant people here that make the experience unpleasant: cranks & ruleswankers, for example. Then there is the matter that the most active Wikipedian remains a stranger to the vast majority of other active contributors: we have little or no ability to build up an informal reputation here, even as far as to alert our peers that one is not just another newbie. As a result, as much as any of us -- okay, as much as I would like to receive lots of praise & validation that I'm an important member of Wikipedia, most of the time I'm by far happier if the rest of you just leave me alone to work on my own little corner. I don't want any praise, just a reasonable amount of civility & the assumptoin that I usually know what I'm doing.

Next, my motivations didn't quite match those described in this essay. I had decided to leave for a while first -- yes, in part to see if anyone noticed, but also because I was growing angry with certain users & knew that if I did take a break I might do something I would later regret. But no one noticed; we all think we're more important than we really are & it sucks when we learn the truth. I was about to accept this humbling discovery & move on with my life when, glancing thru the usual places in an admittedly self-centered quest for validation, I found Yet Another thread about a certain borderline contributor. Now that ticked me off & I threw a tantrum, which got me attention, sadly. And I still wonder why the only way I could get any attention was by being unreasonable.

Lastly, I have been troubled by a phenomenon of Wikipedia which has continued for a long time, several years in fact: the steady loss of experienced members. Almost all of the people who made Wikipedia work when I started here back in late 2002 have gone, & I wonder why that is. These people are our institutional history, the ones with experience in the ways of Wikipedia who can prevent us from repeating mistakes. Most of them have gone & the few who haven't operate under the radar, more interested in being left alone to edit articles than to share their experience with newer Wikipedians. It's as if being a Wikipedian means you contribute until you eventually burn out, then either blow up like a supernova or simply fade away like a dimming white dwarf. Neither is a worthy ending for so many altruistic contributions to an important project. -- llywrch (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm some interesting thoughts Ilywrch. I'd just like to clarify something because Jemmy seemed to not understand it and also to re-iterate something just in case you didn't pick it up either -- that as far as I'm concerned, the behaviour this essay refers is for example when an admin threatens to leave often simply for the attention and all the responses they get saying "please don't leave!" and "come back please", when the leaving behaviour was not even sparked by anything significant. This essay asks that people don't feed this behaviour, i.e. if the diva wants to leave because someone disagreed with them then let them leave. If they want to come back let them come back. But by encouraging this up-start behaviour by giving them attention, they will be more encouraged to throw a tantrum in the future. The second aspect of behaviour this essay I think is referring to is when these users (typically admins) who "should know better" start to expect that the very rules they are supposed to be defending, don't apply to them - what you might call a rogue admin. These admins combine this behaviour with the first behaviour - in other words they throw their weight around, demanding you worship them and give them respect, being rude, uncivil and unhelpful to anyone they disagree with, and if you don't respect their "divine" behaviour they'll simply threaten to leave. This behaviour encourages some very bad practises to their peers - and other admins start to think they should throw their weight around some.

Re your comments about the original editors having left: As far as I'm concerned this is largely an inevitability. I've been a member of many community websites over the years and I feel they become both an outlet and an addiction - and we see the same behaviour cropping up - the trolls, the gangs, the elites, the inner circles, the jesters, the middle-aged women, the middle-aged men, the "nice guys", and so forth. It becomes a battleground for personalities to clash. Rfwoolf (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, a fundamental flaw in WP is that it protects what llywrch rightly calls the "ruleswanker", the jerk who always knows more about your specialist subject than you do. You know the sort: "always right", "knows everything", understands nothing. You encounter these cretins whenever you venture into any area that is subject to administrative procedures such as the review processes or the inane CfD process. They are populated by cliques of "usual suspects" who need to have WP:UCS stencilled inside their thick skulls.

Although some people do over-react, it is wrong to dismiss the frustrated expert as a "diva". The frustration is knowing he is right and is banging his head against the proverbial brick wall because of some idiot who has read WP:OR and WP:NPOV but not WP:UCS. Instead of an essay about so-called divas, there should be one (is there one?) about the negative and destructive effect on the site of the ruleswanker. Instead of "letting the diva go", WP should be identifying the POV cretins and forcing them to go.

While I agree that the site must not publish errant nonsense, it surely can allow measured opinions and logical conclusions to be expressed by the subject experts that it claims to welcome. In practice, the site does not welcome the expert at all because he is no more important than a well-meaning enthusiast who writes something because he's read it in a tabloid. In the event of a disagreement between these two parties, surely the wikiproject is best placed to arbitrate, especially as its members must know who the genuine expert is. But, no, everything is decided by some "OR/POV expert" who is allowed to overrule the real expert's summary or logical conclusion because it cannot be verified to a previously published source. Yet the same cretin will happily accept some erroneous nonsense that someone with superficial knowledge has verified to the "fun page" of a gutter rag tabloid.

You could say that experts should be more resilient, that Wikipedia is about much more than showcasing their contributions and that the experts should abide by the no original research rules. But there is much more to it than that. What about the readers who are seeking knowledge from informed views? I have read certain "featured" or "good" articles and noted that virtually every single sentence has an inline citation to show that the statement or quotation has been verified and is not original research or a point of view.

Are these good articles? Well, no, they are anything but. They could just as easily be laid out as a list of 100-plus bullet points and the content would be precisely the same. They are simply lists of statements with no narrative, no humour, no speculation, no opinions, no summary, no original ideas. They are flat, boring, toneless and instantly forgettable. Original thought and the writer's points of view are essential features of a good article, assuming of course that he is actually a good writer as well as a subject expert. Wikipedia's grotesque rules and guidelines do not allow the expert to narrate the subject to the readers in his own words. He states two facts and provides citations for both and then he draws a conclusion based on his genuine knowledge and understanding of the subject. Next time he logs on, he finds that one of the POV cretins has tagged his perfectly reasonable and readable conclusion as POV or OR and is demanding a verifiable source for the sentence.

Then the site wrings its hands and wonders why the subject expert "became a diva" who went away to do something rewarding elsewhere.---Jack | ^{talk page} 14:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one point to clarify: this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine - so "no narrative, no humour, no speculation, no opinions, no summary, no original ideas" is the goal, not something to be criticized. I myself find it difficult to stay within the confines of an encyclopedia's style of writing - I often want to elaborate and explain a point rather than just report what others have said, but encyclopedias are about summarizing others' work, not creating new material. ATren (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias that do welcome expert contributors value their opinions as well as their summaries of published work. Wikipedia does not value experts at all and this leaves the reader with inadequate articles. --86.138.224.174 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Sigh...let me explain something. Wikipedia at the moment and for the foreseeable future runs on the "million monkeys at a million typewriters" philosophy; even though the average contribution value for any one individual user is quite low, the massive number of edits essentially allows articles to be kept in a constant state of reforging, if you will, allowing the dross to be skimmed off the top and the good stuff at the bottom to be saved. In short, by treating all editors the same, it fosters a collaborative environment and allows us to focus solely on the value of one edit versus another (which is generally fair, factual and easy to determine) as opposed to the value of one editor versus another (which quickly boils down into pure politics).
Citizendium uses an expert verification system where they DO give preference to "expert editors". In short, they prefer to make their encyclopedia about editors instead of edits. Unfortunately for this philosophy, just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they're not a terrible, bad and destructive influence on the project; assessing the value of edits is 1000 times easier than assessing the value of the contributor. Category:Banned_Wikipedia_users is full of "subject-matter experts" who, despite their "expertise" were completely incapable of recognizing that Wikipedia doesn't care who they are or what they say they're an expert at. This is why we do not have (and are unlikely to ever have) mandatory account registration. There are a lot of people with legitimate academic credentials who simply lack the necessary social skills to work in a free and fully collaborative environment without constant conflict. I can think of 5 or 6 banned users who meet that description off the top of my head, most of whom have gone over to WR, where they continue to bang their heads against the rock that is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". A reasonable person, when faced with the reality that Wikipedia is not what they expected it to be, would simply leave gracefully and return to writing copyrighted academic papers that they can violently defend and argue about all day. When they refuse to do so they need to be ostracized until they figure out that this isn't the place for them. Bullzeye ^contribs 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fake retirements is the least of concerns here

Although the tale about repeated retirements is probably rooted in reality, this essays seem to overemphasize that aspect. I think the most damaging DIVA-ish behavior is of a different nature: using "I do awesome work in area X" as a shield for deflecting criticism of their behavior in general, or in order to give extra weight to their opinion in disputes in another content area Y. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The impotent threats to leave are irritating and common.

Your idea is partly described at "Frequent citation of personal edit counts in disputes". Perhaps you'd like to add another line there, to expand that concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Have mörser, will travel's comment here came immediately after quoting WP:DIVA as a reason to scoff at dispute resolution, and hence (with apparently unintentional irony) leave in a huff. Even more ironically, after stating an intention to leave the dispute, this user then returned to it and continued to assume bad faith, without taking on board previous criticism for this.

Such background is unlikely to be a good basis for improving this essay. Geometry guy 00:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming bad faith and your condescending comments. I've decided to stick around. Tough luck for editors of a certain kind. Some got banned by ArbCom in the mean time. Others got topic bans. Some kinds of dispute resolutions do work. We have to try talking nice first, but not limit dispute resolution to that forever. (I'm digressing but, at times, WP:DR does look like: talking, talking, talking, NUKE!) Back on topic: alas, some wp:divas never retire of their own accord or if the do, then they make surprise comebacks. So, I stick with my opinion that divas who do retire are actually of less concern that the other varieties. I don't care about changing this essay in that direction though. In the mean time, I've discovered there's another essay on that issue. And I have my own minor addition to that [1]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I stick with my opinion that divas who do retire are actually of less concern

Sure, but that's not what the essay's talking about. It's talking about divas who say they're going to retire, but never actually leave. It is, in short, talking about the damage done to the community by immature, manipulative liars. We have a problem with divas who essentially say things like, "If you don't do it my way, then I'm going to take my ball and go home, so there!", but who never actually leave, no matter how much we wish they would go away until they grow up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Einstein

• And keep in mind that Wikipedia is doing quite well, while Einstein has not edited or created a single article.

Einstein isn't regarded as a diva so I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to convey.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That confusing edit was added here. I've removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Misuse

I really do not like this article and would actually propose to remove it. It is aggressively slanted against users with more past contributions, including people who have never threatened to leave a single time. More precisely, it is directed against the user receiving "thanks" badges from other users, the list of created articles in the userspace and other fully objective and neutral items that just inform about the truth exactly as it is. I think that having a great contribution in the past may indicate that a person really cares about Wikipedia and he will likely contribute significantly in the future as well.

If the past work should not contribute to the status in the community, who should? Ability to write insulting messages so that they are not considered trolling while any reply for them is? Having a supporting administrator who shares your point of view? I actually do not like people with very little (if any) real past contribution, or having no significant recent contribution, taking over leadership of the project and setting up they orders using mostly methods of cooperative trolling. This is unlikely in the bigger community that always has enough members to represent a sane opinion but happens in smaller projects, Lithuanian Wikipedia, to precise. Respect to the past could provide a long term contributor at least some protection.

"Official disrespect" to the most contributing members is highly unexpected for me and, at least during the first reading, actually sounds for me like reasonable argument to leave without any other reasons. At the end, even real primadons only receive increased attention because they deserve it with they work and performing skills Audriusa (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I want additionally to clarify that my contribution to English Wikipedia is proportionally minor, my leave, if any, would have absolutely no impact on this project, I have received a lot of knowledge reading here articles written by other users and I am fully aware about all this. Audriusa (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This essay doesn't promote disrespect for productive editors. It promotes disrespect for a particular group of badly behaved editors, some of whom are also productive editors. Perhaps it is different at the Lithuanian Wikipedia, but here at the English Wikipedia, we have many highly productive editors who do not engage in self-aggrandizement, are not narcissistic, do not cause needless drama whenever someone happens to have a different opinion, and do not act like little children who want to order around everyone else on the playground. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I assure you it is exactly the same in Lithuanian wikipedia. Mr. Audriusa knows it first hand since he recently dramatically left Lithuanian Wikipedia (banning himself, no less) over a small disagreement. Since then he started to truncate this article aggressively, removing everything that he disagrees with or anything that "he does not understand" (from edit comments). With all due respect --Cornplanter (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement was over one of the core Wikipedia rules, lasted several months and included the forced termination of the two voting procedures over community-prepared document (initially written by bureaucrat), with third finally accepting it. Defending this document, I have fulfilled my duties as administrator, enforcing the will of community. For this history I have earned something that looked for me like a little bit of trolling and wikihounding, while of course this may also be my deeply subjective opinion without the smallest ground. Anyway this forced me to take several years of wikibreak with plain purpose to allow the situation to cool down, focusing for that time on English Wikipedia instead. Tiny projects with less than ten active members may require actions unthinkable here. Audriusa (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The German WP has a similar discussion, I chged the article into a "How to treat Divas" Vademecum, including the Janteloven. Think the same could be done and wouldbe helpful here. Polentario (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Polentario, but I really don't think your edits are improving the page, much of it is rambling, and parts of it are badly translated gibberish ("Allures might come up with long time membership of the WP Community"?). I get that it sucks someone is trying to delete your version on the German WP, but that doesn't mean we want your version here--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you not get how this works? You were bold, you were reverted, then you're supposed to discuss, WP:BRD--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As said, you should try to behave. Furthermore I have explained what is going on the De WP, I saw the debate about erasure of the article here. I assume it would be reduce the amount of spite againts power users and their allures but actually indicate how to treat them and their condrums. Polentario (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored my comment, please do not remove again unless you can explain how exactly you feel it is a personal attack. All I'm trying to say is that your changes are not improving the page. Try a little good faith--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If thats good behavior, your bad one could place you in rank of file elsewhere. As said, I personally have given good reasons to expand the article, based on the discussions here and I dont see how youre answering this, except with noiyy PA Polentario (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or this is some sort of attempt at trolling. Nothing in my comment was in anyway a personal attack, And it's quite simple, your edits as they are, are not an improvement, please instead follow standard procedure and discuss them here. As you may see, I have restored the original opening section, because the one you added was, well, virtually unintelligible--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As said, civility is not one of your strengths ;) I have given good reason for my edits here, youre spitting. Polentario (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, would you please point out to me where exactly in that first comment I attacked you or was uncivil? You have given a reason, you have had nobody support that reason, and even if that reason is good, it does not mean your changes are good. --Jac16888 ^Talk 19:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You're really getting on my nerves now. With your last revert you also reverted my attempt to cleanup some of the poor parts you added--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just try to read and understand my starting point. This article has been critized for being both Bitey and insulting to those who have been around for a while,especially power users. Changes are made to treat divas allures and how to keep them in a civil manner. The janteloven is exact about that. You started with swearing and and angry reverts. Polentario (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What swearing? What angry reverts? You're the one who just reverted me actually tidying the article. This entire page is about ignoring users who are being "high and mighty" about themselves, not about how not to become one--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems youre on your best ways ;) Polentario (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems you're talking rubbish, you keep accusing me of attacking you and you have yet to point to a single offensive comment I have made about you. I would appreciate it if you stop blindly reverting my edits and actually attempt to discuss it with me, as you should have done the first time you were reverted --Jac16888 ^Talk 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically, WP:BRD is optional. In fact, the BRD essay itself recommends that only experienced and capable editors attempt to use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried to narrow the scope of this essay, focusing on the editors who are in a persistent attention - seeking loop of "leave-return". After all, the primary idea of the article is exactly about this group of users. There are other essays and rules about the proper use of the user pages and proper way of discussion. This way the essay still serves to the goal for that is has been written but seems no longer insulting for more sensitive people who are absolutely not in the mentioned loop. I also think that diva is a person who demonstratively retires with the purpose of seeking for attention. People retiring first time because of other reasons are not divas, even if they explain the reason of retirement. Audriusa (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand: retiring (or, more correctly, threatening to retire but refusing to actually do it) is not a necessary characteristic of a diva. You can be a diva without ever threatening to retire. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It may then be some another unproductive pattern of behavior, looks for me like some kind maybe of troll that also makes productive contributions time to time. Maybe we could better have another article on it. The original article was also directed against contribution tracking on the user page, and in its Lithuanian translation it was even directed against thanking badges and barnstars, even if these come (or at least should come) from other users. If you are that much against contribution tracking, barnstars and userboxes (from your userpage does not look like), I propose to move these objections into own essay where they could be discussed separately. It seems to me that in small projects respected long term contributions could actually stabilize the community and that respect in that community should be earned through the hard work (not like "I am willing to join this team as a leader"). From the other size, English Wikipedia may be large enough to be stable without this additional care. Audriusa (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you should stop editing this page. You do not appear to understand the concept.

Additionally, nobody here actually cares what a similar page says at the Lithuanian Wikipedia, or whether this page would be a good idea for the Lithuanian Wikipedia. This is not the Lithuanian Wikipedia or any other small project, so we don't need to consider whether it would be helpful or appropriate to a small project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The current version is better than the one I decided to override with the bold edit and I think could stay as a result of consensus. As it stands, it probably should not be a problem. Audriusa (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on this essay

This is an essay. The content for this essay comes from real-life experience with real-life divas. Paraphrasing a quote from a user to this policy without linking or mentioning who that quote came from is not "harassment". There is no censorship here. Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs), clearly a user with an extensive history of disruption when looking at the block log for this account, has been edit-warring with me on this, and it is not appreciated or needed. The edit summary accusing me of "representing the worse of WP's hostility & nastiness" is repugnant and unfounded. Doc talk 07:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You have no credibility, Doc. You're simply dishonest, and attempting to harass Eric Corbett thru your post. Remember this?:

I haven't posted there [Eric Corbett's User talk] since my last post, and I don't plan on it. It seems pretty clear I'd be blocked for "harassment" if I were to ever post there again. Doc talk 06:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You added the harassing post and I reverted you, then you claimed I should do WP:BRD on it, which is arse-backwards. (Another proof of your disingenuousness.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not Eric Corbett's page, and I haven't posted there since I said that. I never brought his name up here - you did. Your block log, frankly, sucks. I take little stock in your credibility, as I've never been blocked for TE and the like. And you ain't going to get me to do it. Doc talk 08:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

More dishonesty from you ...

Your edit sum:

No links, paraphrased. Simply the perfect summation of the diva mentality, You can't make this shit up. Brilliant!

Your post:

"Wikipedia needs me far more than I need Wikipedia."

What Eric Corbett wrote:

Wikipedia needs me far more than I need Wikipedia. User:Eric Corbett 23:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(So where's the "paraphrase", liar?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't link or attribute any quote to any particular editor. No reader would come along and think that quote to be "harassment". Harassment of who? And you'd better stop calling me a liar. Your block log is making more sense with every attack you make. Kicking me off your talk page (a classic way to both get the last word and simultaneously set up groundwork for a "baiting" claim): unimpressive. Doc talk 08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're such a paper tiger. (And so full of BS. Are you an "encyclopedia builder"? I think not. You should be blocked. Drmies was right, you are a "disruptor". Go soak your head.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

More attacks. There's no question who the proven "disruptor" is here. Let's compare block logs before deciding who should be blocked. Go play chess. Doc talk 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What DIVA is not

This is a fine essay. I want to see a section on "What DIVA is now" OR "Don't misinterpret Diva". For example

• Not all personal experience is DIVA argument: Very recently I said an editor "I Have seen many times non-English redirects being nominated for deletion". I have ACTUALLY seen it. I was telling him my experience. Nothing else.
• DIVA is not a weapon of spammers and trolls': So that they will use this page to close any protester's/admin's mouth.

More importantly—

• Real incidents: We are not bots. We may have emotions. And after some conflicts and/or disputes or for any other reason we may need short breaks. Wikipedia also suggests to take such breaks. After an article move in November, I was so upset, I took a short Wikibreak, though I did not announce or write about the Wikibreak anywhere. Not all retirements or wikibreaks are DIVAs.

Tito☸Dutta 22:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Jânio Quadros image

I added a {{CN}} tag. Jânio Quadros mentions the resignation initiated "serious political crisis". I am not sure "good for who"? --Tito☸Dutta 22:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with divas

This essay only tells us what to do if you're a member of the diva's entourage. But if you're a follower then the appropriate thing to do is to fulfill your destiny and fawn all over the diva, "Oh please, don't go! Don't go! We need you too much! We love you!" What I'd like to know is, how to deal with a diva when you're one of the little people, the toe-steppers busy being squashed by the diva and the diva's entourage of heavies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If they're a productive editor, just have a user talk discussion with them about why "I quit if I don't get my way" isn't a useful debate tactic here. If they're habitually disruptive and don't contribute much to the process, cite WP:5THWHEEL and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Manufactured scenario

"The content for this essay comes from real-life experience with real-life divas. Doc talk 07:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)". Oh really? (From the article [added 4/17/2014 by user Doc9871]: "A real diva doesn't apologize for much of anything; and your apology is only accepted on the condition that you agree with the diva's view." This seems implausible and made up. [No? Then I'd like to see diff of even one incident on the WP where an apology was rejected on the basis the apologizing editor didn't/wouldn't agree with the diva's view.]) IHTS (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

So now you're calling me a liar? I don't have to explain any part of what I wrote to you. Do you understand? Doc talk 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Quit trying to put words in my mouth. If you can't provide any diff for what you described and added to the essay, then your add really didn't come from "real-life experience" then, did it. If you can't back up what you write, then ... IHTS (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not falling for your baiting. I'm not naming anyone as a diva, nor to I have to. I could care less what you believe or do not believe. Your entire presence on this essay and its talk page has been to troll me. Go troll someone else. Your block log for personal attacks speaks for itself. Doc talk 09:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you frequently resort to the lowest debate tactics on the Wiki? (Ad hominem references to dodge argument, like editors' block logs, as though some sort of gold standard?; like personalizing by accusing them of personally attacking you, or baiting you, or trolling?) What I think is, that you added the text about "your apology is only accepted on the condition that you agree with the diva's view" as pure fantasy, something you wanted to believe as true, but had no foundation in real-world Wiki experience, and that there isn't even one such example that can be found. (I realize any diff you present would be claiming someone as a diva, but, you painted yourself into that corner, I didn't. Also, since you previously had no problem with quoting someone you thought was a diva [from your editsum: "You can't make this shit up."], while claiming your quote was paraphrasing [when it wasn't], as alternative to diff'ing even one incident to support your above add, you could quote text from said incident instead, so as not to identify as diva any particular editor.) IHTS (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My credibility is not on trial here. And this is not the venue to accuse me of wrongdoing. Open an AN/I on me if you want. I did not paint myself into any corner, and I certainly do not have to satisfy your ridiculous request for any diffs. I've had it with you hounding me. Hopefully someone will hat this "section" soon. Doc talk 21:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You've added whimsy, complete fantasy to the essay, presumably in order to paint label "diva" as even more devilish than the description/definition before your involvement with it. You stated the article content comes from real experience. But asking for even one Wiki example to back up your add has produced from you nothing but ad hominem, personal attacks, and dodges. (But according to you, challenging your essay content add on the essay discussion page, is "personal hounding". Go figure!) IHTS (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Promotes dumbed downed prejudice

More over-broad content (added 12/10/2014 by user Cambalacher [2]): If the diva eventually gets blocked for any of this [referring to either "edit-warring, assuming bad faith, disruptive editing, battling, harassment, making personal attacks, or owning things"], he will not accept that he made something wrong and try to change it [...]. So admins are flawless and to challenge their rationale for these blocks puts one in line for fitting profile to be labelled diva. (Oh yeah. This essay has such integrity. What was I thinking??) IHTS (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What color is the sky in your world? Doc talk 08:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, am I taking the essay too seriously? (Who wrote this?: There is no consensus to rewrite this essay on your "terms": and I will fight this PC nonsense until the bitter end.) IHTS (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. Can't see the sky: "Big dogs! On my face!" (Robin Williams, Good Morning, Vietnam, 1987) IHTS (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A behavior pattern does not need to be infallible, as in "if he does X, then it must be an Y". A rule "an Y would likely do X" is enough. Cambalachero (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Your add doesn't allow for admin infallibility; it states if a diva is blocked for any reason listed, she/he will not see their guilt and won't change accordingly (If the diva eventually gets blocked for any of this, he will not accept that he made something wrong and try to change it). (That's pure dumbed-down stuff!) IHTS (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. That's what I said, that "an Y would likely do X". X → Y ≠ Y → X. But following logic, if someone does NOT do X, then it likely won't be an Y. Y → X ⇔ ~X → ~Y. Meaning: someone who accept his mistakes and fixes them (or, better yet, does not get blocked or warned for those reasons to begin with), is less likely to be a diva. Cambalachero (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That's totally messed up. You're still missing the point, and in addition you're now misquoting yourself w/ abandon. (That is not what you've added to the article. I've listed twice what your addition was.) Dance some more? 09:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas/sandbox obviate these concerns?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

More over-broad content

From the essay (added on 4/17/2014 by user Doc9871 [3]): Some may argue with "walls of text" while others opt for curt dismissals. Either way: the diva wins.

What about "normal" length arguments - does a diva use those too to win his case? (Or just the extremes you mentioned?) Presumably, the extremes you mentioned, were to simply point out the endpoints of the bandwidth (thus, essentially covering all lengths of argument, from short to verbose). Presumably then, the point of your add, is ... what? (That any editor who argues with conviction to defend a view, qualifies the diva description!?) Please explain, as this seems to broad-brush anyone who stands up for anything. IHTS (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Anyone who stands up for anything is a diva. That's exactly what I meant. Great interpretation! Doc talk 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary sarcasm. I was asking the utility/function of the text you added. (It seems to have no purpose, since describes anyone that stands up for anything.) So what was the point of the text you added. (Even one point will satisfy my Q. Can you name even one?) IHTS (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Just because you don't get it does not mean others do. Doc talk 03:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If you had even one point for your text addition, then let's hear it. (Instead of whatever mocking non-response you gave.) IHTS (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

All of these WP:BEANS suggestions that "the diva wins" have been removed from a draft rewrite.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas → ? – Precedent: Move of WP:Don't be a dick to WP:Don't be a jerk, which didn't even involve any issues relating to WP:BIAS against women. The message of this essay (don't engage, or enable others to engage, in "entitled" demands to get one's way, especially through threats to quit the project) is important, but it offends (I've caught heat for even mentioning it) for the sole reason that its title and a few bits of its wording are pretty much the same thing as having this be at "WP:BITCH". There has to be a way to express this without being misogynistic, when Wikipedia's main point of criticism in academia and the press is a hostile editing environment for, and poor coverage of, women.[4][5][6]   I detest unwarranted "political correction" and picking at "microaggressions", so if I find this troubling, it's probably inappropriate in an encyclopedia project. It's a PR and WP:Editor retention problem. It also defeats the point of the essay, which (as with WP:JERK) is intended to reduce strife, not generate more of it. The name no longer makes sense anyway, since its referent, WP:Don't feed the trolls is now WP:Deny recognition. Update since relisting: WP:Don't be high maintenance has been suggested by several commenters. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC) [Revised and re-launched; it wasn't showing up in WP:RM the first time for some reason. 06:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC). Updated. 06:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)]

• Oppose; I don't see that the current title needs a rename. It conveys the message far better than "royalty" would. While diva usually refers to a woman, the WP:Diva essay is clear that it's gender-neutral. Since bitch is mentioned in this section, I point out that bitch has increasingly referred to men over the years. I wouldn't mind a WP:BITCH essay, but we already have WP:Don't be a jerk. And, by the way, I disliked when WP:Don't be a dick was changed to WP:Don't be a jerk. Also, if anyone thinks that I don't have a problem with these titles because I'm male, that's not it; I'm female. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm not wedded to "royalty"; just the first idea off the top of my head, and there are many more ideas below. The rest of that I've refuted in detail here. None of this constitutes a source- or policy-based (or clear common-sense-based) rationale against the move.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  I don't mind supporting this essay being moved to WP:TANTRUM or WP:HISSYFIT, though. I don't see a problem with those alternatives. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Seems like pandering to a politically correct issue that isn't even really there. Divas are not exclusively female. I don't know a proper equivalent to encompass male divas without stepping on imaginary toes, but "royalty" is not it. All royals are not divas, obviously. I helped write a lot of this article, and none of my RL inspirations were female. WP has notoriously few female editors, as we well know. And that has nothing to do with this little essay one way or the other. Changing the title will not open the welcome wagon to female editors. The title should remain as it is. Doc talk 06:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've refuted this in detail here. You've provided no source- or policy-based (or clear common-sense-based) rationale against moving the page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because the current title is hilarious while getting straight to an important point. GregKaye 19:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Redirect to WP:DENY, though something non-gendered like WP:TANTRUM has a ring to it. WP:JERK covers the rest. While the labels like troll, dick and diva have a ring to them for the frustrated, I can't think of one single time they have been used and resulted in a positive outcome. It's merely a method by which people can vent their spleen at someone else. Frankly, no one on the receiving end is going to take it to heart and just say, "oh my, I am so sorry I was being a [fill in the blank], I most sincerely promise to take your admonition to heart and change my [fill in the blank]-ish ways." And yes, there are sexist implications, as there are for the b-word; just because slang is evolving new uses doesn't negate the power a word has when used in a more typically offensive fashion. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Montanabw, WP:DENY is discussing a different matter than this essay. And as for a Wikipedia editor realizing the error of their ways after being called a dick or a diva, some do. And I don't see how calling an editor a jerk or indicating that they should not be one results in "a positive outcome" more so than the "dick" and "diva" alternatives. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that the content of these essays sometimes does actually change people's approach. But this only happens when they can get past the label and the not-even-slightly-veiled insult. Which isn't often. This essay in particular would be vastly more effective if it addressed the "I'm going to quit if I lose" pattern (not the people using it), which is very frequent, and not only used by habitual "divas". It's very often used by subject-matter experts who have not adjusted yet, and are used to academic deference because of their credentials. I shudder to think how many have left and never come back after this essay was cited to or about them. I know of one for certain. Actually two, now that I think back aways (a published dermatology personage working on one of the albinism articles). WP:JERK I would not change. It's a different case. It's not addressing one narrow, specifically addressable debate tactic, but is speaking to an overall pattern of assholery. It's kind of a last resort "snap out of it" move to cite that. WP:DIVA is not. It's more like reminding people of Godwin's law. And making nazi (or other genocidal) metaphors to "win" debates is just as much a curable habit as threatening to take your ball and go home, I'd wager.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I like Montanabw's idea of WP:TANTRUM. Perhaps WP:HISSYFIT would be a tad better though there's some suggestion this might come from hysteria? Might I suggest the humorous WP:Don't feed the drama llamas as well. Also agree that gendered insults, even when applied to another gender, are still gendered insults. When calling a man a bitch, you're saying he's acting like a woman, and that's intended to be insulting to him for some reason. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people restrict the term bitch in that way, when applied to a man; others don't. Flyer22 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to any title which isn't sexist or abrasive. If Doc and others don't care about the historical context of words or the perpetuation of sexism in society, they're entitled to their opinion; and we're entitled to not taking that opinion very seriously. Alakzi (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  As anyone can clearly see from the opening line, it is not "sexist". "A Wikipedia diva is a long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, and who requires regular validation of that belief." The "he or she" part should clue one in really quick. Abrasive? How should we describe people like this then? In flowery, politically correct terminology? Half of you miss the entire point of the essay to begin with. Not everyone here is holding hands and singing Kumbaya. That's why we have pages like this. Doc talk 06:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  Historically, "diva" refers to women who are said to be self-important. A gendered pejorative is, by definition, sexist. Though derogatory words for women have come to be used against both sexes, the association is not altogether lost. It is irrelevant whether you did or did not intend for it to be sexist; the continued use of gendered pejoratives contributes to the perpetuation of a male-domineered gender-binary society. Alakzi (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title is clear, descriptive and on-point. Without even reading the essay, one immediate groks the advice just by the title. It is in no way misogynistic. Used informally, diva has the same meaning as prima donna: "a person who thinks she or he is better than everyone else and who does not work well as part of a team or group". None of the alternatives that I have seen so far come close to being as meaningful and recognizable as the current title.- MrX 11:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: The cases are not comparable. As far as I understand it, "Dick" is an open insult, while "diva" is just an adjetive with a negative meaning. Both are words that someone would not like to be described with, but they are not in the same location in the sliding scale of words to describe people. And, by the way, whatever its origins are, in modern usage "diva" is not a gender-specific adjetive. Haven't you seen The Avengers? Cambalachero (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, if we translated a "tantrum" into behavior specific for wikipedia (of course, none of us are toddlers, so there are no real tantrums in this page), a WP:TANTRUM redirect should actually point to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Cambalachero (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. "Sock" and "vandal" names can have some objective justification. "Diva" is subjective and open to abuse (duh, like it isn't/hasn't been used abusively?!; isn't that why it is here - to satisfy the need to be abusive - WP's hallmark character trait?). An incremental improvement in ocean of WP hypocrisy. WP s/n be sanctifying or encouraging name-calling per WP:NPA (duh). IHTS (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

What a bunch of crap. You fling around insults at anyone who doesn't agree with your disgruntled view of how things should be around here. Don't have to look too far back in your block log for a "personal attack" block. You idolize people that epitomize this essay. The massive "inspirational quote" section on your user page should be deleted per WP:POLEMIC. Doc talk 00:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Not crap. But your stuff is. IHTS (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Are you attempting to deny that your disgruntled list of "inspirational quotes" violates POLEMIC? What purpose does it serve then? And just who do you think you are "motivating" by having it there? Your malcontented view of personal attacks is screwed, as is your hatred of admins. Someone such as you who has been repeatedly and forcibly blocked to prevent actual personal attacks is in no position to determine what construed personal attacks are. Your opinion on this is utterly worthless, IMHO. Doc talk 06:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) "Someone such as you" puts your argumentation style on display. "Are you attempting to deny" sounds like it belongs in a court trial cross examination or deposition. Trying to go off-topic w/ a personal squabble is noted (and disruptive to this thread, if WP guidelines mean anything). IHTS (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC) It doesn't help a "no name-calling" !vote to follow it up with "your stuff is ... crap", Ihardlythinkso. Just sayin'.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Trying to instigate a personalized and off-topic catfight is the crap. Trying to smear, defame, discredit people not ideas or arguments is the crap. IHTS (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Your use of "defame" is noted. I don't think you truly know what defamation means, especially in the context of WP. Doc talk 09:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Trying to argue that the term diva isn't gendered requires some pretty tortured reasoning. "Well, I don't mean it that way" misses the point. WP:TANTRUM sounds like a good alternative. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the claimed precedent was more offensive than the name here. I get the feeling that the reason that some (but not all above) do not like the title, is because they are behaving like the diva described in the essay. This includes the long diatribes. However people mostly do not like to be called "divas", whether male or female. The name of this is not so much an issue, but the way people may be accused of being a diva. The term diva is commonly used in English to those making an undue fuss, so the current name is appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point in suggesting that the accusation is the problem, and then engaging in the accusation, just to cast doubt on people that disagree with you. That said, I agree with your premise, and it's the motivator of the move request and the suggestion for some rewording. I go into this in more detail in the discussion at #Name ideas, below. Short version: It's the behavior pattern we want to address not some personality "type" we want to give the finger to. So having this essay be at a pejorative label at all is counter-productive. PS: If as you say the current name matches the [slang, not opera] usage of the word, why would that make it "appropriate" when there are other problems with it? "Stupid jackass" probably accurate describes lots of editorial behavior too, but we wouldn't tolerate an essay named that, I'd bet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• If I can !vote on my own proposal I now favor Wikipedia:Don't be high maintenance. I really like WP:TANTRUM. I crack up every time I see it. I guess that doesn't help with "what the whole title should be". In Googling for "hissy fit etymology", I find tentative etymological connections to "hussy" and to "hysterical", though, so that has the same issue as "diva".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Updated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  Debated etymology, but yeah. TANTRUM is a fine option. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support any move to a non-gendered title. "Political correctness" or no, as the nom says, this is a PR and retention issue. Wikipedia has a hard enough time attracting female editors as it is, we don't need to make it even harder on ourselves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  Well, what about "Don't feed the high-maintanence editors (HME's)"? Any objection to that? There is nothing gendered in that title at all. Doc talk 06:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, or WP:TANTRUM, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing suggests that "high-maintenance" is also generally a term applied to women, so it's not a good replacement. WP:TANTRUM seems to be the best bet, just change the intro slightly and we're done here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of why I proposed the rename is that the "don't feed ..." thing doesn't really work any more. "Don't feed the trolls" worked, because trolls legendarily sit under bridges to eat people or their goats or whatever, and the title implies we've run into one on our editing road ("Don't feed the wildlife"). The second implication, that we want metaphorically to starve it into leaving forever is okay, because Internet trolls are WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. We do not want to retain them, and they generally cannot be "reached". None of this applies to alleged "divas", who are usually just frustrated editors over-involved in a particular topic area (often trying to right a WP:GREATWRONG or to promote a particular view on a WP:SOAPBOX, or sometimes just historically used to a lot of direct personal control in an obscure topic area that is finally attracting other editors). We do want to reach and retain them, and just get them to stop engaging in entitled/childish behavior patterns when they feel cornered. The "feeding" reference doesn't work with them, now that WP:DENY has dropped that metaphor. "Divas" are not associated with feeding.

"Do not enable high-maintenance editors" could work (aside from potential gender-related concerns about "high-maintenance"), but it's not very pithy.

I think it would be better to rewrite this as WP:Don't be high-maintenance (which several others have suggested), and focus it (with minimal rewriting) on behaviors to avoid rather than behaviors to identify and label other people with. I've produced a draft revision at WP:Don't feed the divas/sandbox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support a move per Opabinia regalis and because, and per SMcCandlish's point that "This essay was named in homage to / mimicry of WP:Don't feed the trolls, but that's now at WP:Deny recognition, so the present title of this essay is essentially nonsensical, having no referent for the odd diva-feeding pseudo-metaphor, except in the memories of WP old-timers." -sche (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It is time for us to retire gender-based epithets. We should be encouraging editors to comment on behavior, not on individuals. Any gender-neutral name is going to be an improvement here. Having someone link to WP:DIVA while calling out the actions of another editor creates an environment hostile towards women (especially if that editor identifies as woman and has to wonder whether the gendered label is intentional). gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Relisting comment. While it could be argued there is a rough consensus in favour of a move at the moment, the question still remains to where? We cannot simply call it Wikipedia:TANTRUM. Cuchullain has made a reasonable fist of starting this discussion below. I'm relisting this because I think, if it is to be moved, there needs to be more than just a consensus that the current title is unsuitable, we need an actual consensus of where it is exactly being moved to and how the essay will be rewritten. Jenks24 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Far more uncertain/incomplete RMs need to be relisted like this. Just closing them with "no consensus" is really unhelpful, since it tends to just put off the discussion for 3–18 months without resolving anything in the interim.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a clarity of intent to the current title that would be lost in all suggestions made so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Update: See draft revision at Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas/sandbox, working title "Wikipedia:Don't be high maintenance". Since it's been pointed out that many of the name change suggestions, and other comments so far, would require a rewrite that wasn't focused on identifying people as divas, progress toward consensus probably needs one or more solutions to actually look at.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally, it is so much nicer for all around for every to be nice and gentle and to always assume good faith. The exceptions are with non-productive disruptive people. With them, it is better for all, including the recipient, to say it plain and simple. Your proposed title fails to cut. Intended recipients don't require gentle subtleties that one might hope will help them reflect and see there is a better way. Sometimes it is best to be wikt:curt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Name ideas

• This essay was named in homage to / mimicry of WP:Don't feed the trolls, but that's now at WP:Deny recognition, so the present title of this essay is essentially nonsensical, having no referent for the odd diva-feeding pseudo-metaphor, except in the memories of WP old-timers. WP:Deny entitlement, WP:Deny enabling. It could move to something completely different, e.g. WP:No hissy-fits, WP:Don't threaten to quit in a huff, WP:Don't take your ball and go home, WP:Then take your ball and actually go home, WP:You can't "win" by quitting, WP:Proof by door-slamming, WP:Argument by tantrum, WP:Quadros' law, WP:Conniption fail, WP:Bailing is not an argument, WP:Don't let the door..., WP:Threats to leave are not a debate, WP:Resign or don't threaten to resign, WP:Get on with it or zip it, WP:Wikipedia is not the playground, WP:Threats to storm off are a concession of debate, WP:Storming out, WP:Just go, WP:Run away! Run away!, etc., etc. Mix and match, see what makes you laugh but also gets the message across. Some would need a new sentence added to the text, e.g. to account for playground and taking your ball and going home references, or the Monty Python reference, etc. I think I'd favor one that didn't suggest people actually quit, for WP:Editor retention reasons. Then again, in my experience, people who threaten to quit over editing disputes usually cause more trouble than they are worth; it's a WP:5THWHEEL thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  None of these titles describe the type of editor that is a "diva". Sugar-coating it or sweeping it under the rug will not make this sort of individual less identifiable, nor immune to extra scrutiny. Doc talk 07:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is a "type", unless they have some form of psychosis and are literally incapable of change. These are all behavior patterns. The point of an essay like this is not "get the #$%* off Wikipedia and never come back, you nutjob!" It's "these behaviors do not work here, and you won't fare well here unless you adjust." And, of course "Everyone else, don't enable this stuff." Trying to assign the behavior pattern to a mythical "type" that may not really be evidenced in all the ways that conform to the stereotype in question is what sweeps it under the rug. We're not trying to sniff out a "sort of individual", but "sort of behavior". The less it's tied to a stereotype, the more readily it is applied to people who use it, e.g., only when they feel cornered on some issue they feel really strongly about, but who would otherwise not go there. This comes up fairly often. Much more so that truly nutter "divas" who can't even see that they're engaging in this behavior. Otherwise this page would have been WP:MFD'd a long time ago, along with all the patently hostile essays that were deleted. Fortunately this one is not written that way entirely, and to the extent it is it can be fixed easily.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have only just seen this page for the first time and I read the Talk here before the Article. After reading the Talk, I was in favour of Motanabw's (I think) suggestion of Tantrum. This indicates rather childish behaviour on the part of the editor, but what do you call a person having a tantrum....a tantrumer, tantrumee (not a serious question)? I then read the article and it actually covers a lot of behavioural issues, rather than just walking off. However, to my mind, the article covers all these in the second-last sentence where it discusses these editors as being "high maintenance". How about WP:Don't feed high maintenance editors (HMEs)?DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If it simply has to be renamed because of possible sexism reasons (amazing it's just now been caught), this is the best alternative so far. All the others describe an action instead of a type of editor. Which is why this essay was created to begin with. Otherwise: nominate it for deletion again.[7] Whitewashing and sanitizing this essay because it might "label" or "offend" people? Hogwash. Doc talk 09:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just thought of a tweak to my suggestion above - how about WP:Don't be high maintenance. It's more concise, it is directed straight at the problematic editor (rather than "Don't feed the..." which is directed at other editors), it can be used as a warning as problems escalate as well as a last-ditch effort if an editor is threatening to leave, it is non-sexist, I think it has inherent international understanding, and in my opinion, it is less judgemental and more likely to make the problematic editor think about their actions rather than escalating to the point where they leave.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This essay would still have to be entirely and fundamentally rewritten to accommodate the new "non-label" style. I vote against that as well. Doc talk 06:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr Google tells me that "high-maintenance" is a gendered term as well.[8][9] It can be applied to men (and cars and complex technology), but it's mostly applied to women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

HME is the best option I've seen so far in this PC reversion wave of madness. Men, women and those that identify as transgender can all potentially and theoretically be a HME (or a freaking diva, for that matter). Doc talk 06:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the diffs provided by User:WhatamIdoing. These show that "high-maintenance" can be applied to women but they do not seem to indicate that the term mostly applies to women.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, it's a reference to high-maintenance sportscars, motorcycles, and other devices. In slang, it's often a reference to "kept" (i.e. maintained) partners, which statistically are more often women, though it also often refers to submissive gay men in that role. It's also often used with regard to attention-seeking, psychodramatic persons in a social circle. Its potential value here is that points up "entitled" and passive-aggressive behavior patterns of someone who is or would like to be in a position of being "serviced" by others, and who attempt to get their demands met through remonstrance, hair-pulling, scene-making, and emotional hostage-taking. The social-group meaning is also mostly applied to feminine personalities, regardless of biological sex. For example, the term "attention whore" refers to this behavior among women and effeminate men, but the masculine cognate "attention hog" does not, and more often refers to "life-of-the-party" personalities who lean toward "jackass" antics. It may be far enough removed from gender specifics to use it, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree "high maintenance" is best (in the form WP:HIGH MAINTENANCE). It covers everything the essay intends. WP:TANTRUM unnecessarily connotes immaturity of a toddler -- inherently PA. IHTS (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'd never actually use a shortcut as long as "WP:HIGH MAINTENANCE".  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 

Comments on Flyer22's oppose

'I don't see that the current title needs a rename. It conveys the message far better than "royalty" would. While diva usually refers to a woman, the WP:Diva essay is clear that it's gender-neutral. Since bitch is mentioned in this section, I point out that bitch has increasingly referred to men over the years. I wouldn't mind a WP:BITCH essay, but we already have WP:Don't be a jerk. And, by the way, I disliked when WP:Don't be a dick was changed to WP:Don't be a jerk. Also, if anyone thinks that I don't have a problem with these titles because I'm male, that's not it; I'm female.'

@Flyer22: The exact content of the essay (if they read it) is not going to assuage the "what is this sexist crap?!" reaction many women experience when seeing this page title or its shortcut. The #1 criticism of Wikipedia in the last 5 years or so has been anti-female bias, both in what our content covers and in our editing community. There's a quite large body of both scholarly papers and media coverage on that issue.[10][11][12] In the face of this, and my original points, an I-don't-see-a-big-problem-with-it response isn't much of a rationale; it's WP:ILIKEIT). Same goes for the I-just-disagree approach (the negative form of WP:PERNOM); you have not actually refuted any argument I've made, just registered unclear disagreement with it. The fact that hip hop and teenager slang uses "bitch" or "beeatch" to refer to males sometimes is irrelevant (and misses the point - it's not a gender-neutral term, it's using a female slur to extra-offend a male. That's exactly the case with "diva" to refer to a male, too; it's still female slur. In both cases the vast majority of usage is aimed at women). "Bitch" isn't the title at issue here. The fact that the article is written gender-neural is only marginally relevant, when then issue is mostly reactions to the title itself and resultant impressions of Wikipedia, during a media storm of "Wikipedia is a cesspool of misogyny". It doesn't really matter that these claims are exaggerated; they're a huge PR problem for the project, the worst it's ever had, and the hardest to fix. Why? Because the only way to even slightly adjust the "sausage party" problem it is to attract a very large number of new female editors. Page names like this only hinder that effort, for absolutely zero gain. I have no problem with crude fucking language, in context. >;-) But I'm glad WP:DICK is now WP:JERK, for a reason that gives yet another rationale for this move: It was nearly impossible to use either WP:DICK or WP:DIVA without pissing off anyone referred to it, simply because of the name, and thereby probably increasing their likelihood of being dickish or diva-ish, when the intent of both essays is to reduce this tendency.

All of this together is way more than enough reason to move this page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, the WP:Ping didn't work, but there is no need to WP:Ping me to this page; it's been on my WP:Watchlist for about a year. Maybe two years. Anyway, what proof is there that, generally, women will see this essay and state or think "What is this sexist crap?!"? I also saw no such proof regarding the proposal to change WP:Dick to WP:Jerk. And it's not like anyone can't still currently state/link to WP:Dick if they wanted to. As for claims that Wikipedia is misogynistic and has few female editors, I know all of that. Some editors know just how well I know all of that. And when it comes to arguing what terms are used to offend and/or oppress women, I've certainly had ample say at Talk:Cunt. But I don't see how changing these essay names is a step toward getting more female editors. I see it as generalizing what women will find offensive. I, for example, do not find them offensive to my sex/gender. Well, if the term diva was used to refer to women as a whole for whatever reason, then that is a different matter for me. If a male or a female editor is being a diva, then that is what that male or female editor is being. And WP:Dick? It can be argued that it should offend males more than females, given that its usage usually refers to males. And, yes, I understand that part of the reason its title was changed is because dick usually refers to males. Wikipedia is often a tough place for women, and I've gotten used to that, even by playing hardball right back. These name change matters are things that I do not see doing anything significant for Wikipedia (except for some people being less offended by jerk as opposed to dick). But if people want to close that gender gap, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force is the place specifically designed to get more female editors. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical we need "proof" that traditionally woman-targeted slurs are offensive to a large number of women, even if slang usage has started applying them to men. I got vented at, and even accused of being a diva myself (yes, see above), for going on at length and responding point by point in these discussions, so I'll stop here (unless you ask me to respond to the rest). PS: It's not hard to find material about "diva" being considered offensive or sexist or misogynistic, with some obvious Google searches.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Doc9871's oppose

'Seems like pandering to a politically correct issue that isn't even really there. Divas are not exclusively female. I don't know a proper equivalent to encompass male divas without stepping on imaginary toes, but "royalty" is not it. All royals are not divas, obviously. I helped write a lot of this article, and none of my RL inspirations were female. WP has notoriously few female editors, as we well know. And that has nothing to do with this little essay one way or the other. Changing the title will not open the welcome wagon to female editors. The title should remain as it is.'

Taking these points in order: "Seems like pandering": Already explained why it's not. "not really there": So, none of these articles really exist? [13][14][15] etc. "Divas are not exclusively female": Already addressed that in great detail. "I don't know a proper equivalent": OK. Someone might, and probably 50+ viable names can be constructed just from moving words around in the possibilities I brain-dumped below. "Royalty is not it": Sure, it was just one of many ideas. "All royalty are not divas": All divas in the normal sense are not divas in the slang sense, either, and not all behaviors addressed in the guideline are necessarily "diva" behaviors. There's an obvious focus problem here. The label, while funny to some (including me) isn't the important part, the disruptive behaviors are. Keeping the name is not worth the offensiveness level.

I wasn't going to go into this, but I know directly of one long-term, pain-in-the-ass, but actually highly productive, subject-matter expert, female editor who actually did quit the project in part over this template being cited at her (offensive because of its name, not its message); she quit in larger part for various other things that had been bugging her for a long time. It wasn't the last nail in the coffin but it was very close to it, probably the next-to-last. She's exercised WP:Right to vanish, so I'll just call her KvdL.

"I helped write a lot of this article": Great, and good job, but you don't get a supervote at RM. "None of my RL inspirations were female": Already addressed this: It's about reactions, and perception fallout. 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions', as they say. "WP has notoriously few female editors": Yes, that's the whole point! See the external links I just provided. WP has few female editors because of systemic, if low-level and thoughtless, misogyny (or "stuff that is being perceived as misogyny", functionally equivalent for purposes of this discussion; it's not about intentions.) "And that has nothing to do with this little essay one way or the other.": External data strongly suggests otherwise. This one page by itself isn't the source of this problem, but its title is obviously part of it. We do not have to fix every single gender-related problem on WP all at the same time (WP:OTHERCRAP); fixing this one is part of a long process. And size of the essay has no bearing on anything. "Changing the title will not open the welcome wagon to female editors": It wont hurt, and it will be part of the ongoing process. That's sufficient. Cf. the Nirvana fallacy; perfection is not required for a move toward improvement to be made. "The title should remain as it is": WP:ILIKEIT.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps you believe that meticulously dissecting my oppose will somehow a) nullify it, b) make others weigh your "refutation" over my opinion, or c) miraculously make me change my mind. Good luck with all that, and the rename. Doc talk 07:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• These are discussions, not votes. A) Did you believe that responding with various points against my move proposal would nullify it? A counter-argument to an argument is intended to counter it, yes. B) I'm not sure who "others" are. If you mean am I trying to skew comments after yours by where I'm commenting, no; I realized the responses were long, so I collapseboxed them; then made a Discussion section and moved them here instead, but you editconflicted me while I was doing that last part. If you mean do I hope later commenters consider my comments and yours and that they find my reasoning more applicable? Of course. If you mean do I hope that the closing admin will find my arguments more compelling? Of course. Why else would I make them, just for typing practice? C) Why would it take a miracle for you to think about multiple sets of arguments, weigh them, and adjust your views accordingly? People do very frequently change their mind in RMs and XfDs. Try it sometime?  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• The "point-by-point" style you are using is a major turn-off, possibly the most annoying "counter-argument" style possible. I've been here for a long time, and I know how it affects others. Do as you will. But oftentimes: the less you say the better. It's called being "succinct". I doubt you are swaying anyone at all by this tired method of refutation. I've said my piece for now. Doc talk 07:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's easier to respond to the arguments by quoting them and replying to them inline than paraphrasing and responding from scratch. It took longer than I wanted to respond to Flyer22, in the latter style, so I switched to the faster style in responding to you. I don't use it frequently, just when I want to get on with it

  You seem to be expecting to be able to make arguments that no one may respond to. I generally don't ignore arguments people make unless they're incomprehensible or off-topic, or I don't actually care about anything but some specific point. I'm sure if feels like "less is more" when it equates to "only one of my points has been challenged, so the other 7 should more strongly affect the outcome". >;-) I agree that the block of text would have been shorter without the quoting. While I like it when people bother to go through discussions before !voting, it usually doesn't happen; I don't expect it. I feel, I think, the same way about extremely brief, only-address-1-out-of-7-arguments responses, as you do about ones that hit 7 of 7. I don't get your meaning with "tired method of refutation"? Do you mean the quoting, the "failure" to ignore most of your points, or that I disagreed with you? The first I get, the other two do not compute. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• "I doubt you are swaying anyone at all by this tired method of refutation." What's tiring to read are attacks on the form of an argument (or counter-argument) not the substance. (How's that for being "succinct"?) IHTS (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• IHTS: go add another anti-WP quote to your little userpage. Doc talk 02:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I see. Your ad hominem invite to go off-topic w/ scrappy catfight isn't another demo of argumentation style? And your adding extensively to the essay's bullet list of qualifiers to permit max application of name-call "diva" ... isn't polemic?! (Got it.) IHTS (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• See above. And try to refrain from personal attacks, as they apparent can get one blocked. Doc talk|

SMcCandlish, I know which female editor you are talking about (the "KvdL" part gave it away); and since I did not get along with her, I won't comment any further on that in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NP, on KvdL. LOL: I thought IHTS's "What's tiring to read are attacks on the form of an argument (or counter-argument) not the substance." was a criticism of my point-by-point style and reliance on fallacy-citing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you should just nominate it for deletion again. Because WP:TANTRUM sucks, and it cannot be worked into "repairing" the essay once it is gutted of all intended meaning. Doc talk 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want it deleted at all, though. The behavior pattern is one that needs to be addressed fairly often. I thought to propose the rename because I needed to refer to it the day that I did propose the rename, but the person engaging in the "give me my way or I quit" ultimatums was a woman, just like it was the last several times I've needed to refer to it. The fact that it might need some rewriting is not a problem. Rewriting is the entire point of wiki. Making it more effectively address the problem editing pattern isn't "whitewashing", it's getting more bang for the buck. I have to say that this "just destroy it entirely!" sour grapes act is kind of ironic, given the nature of the essay in question. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't retitle the essay without either substituting "diva" with another term or rewriting it entirely according to the myriad WP:TANTRUM ideas. How would the first sentence of the essay read if were changed to TANTRUM? If you read it carefully you'll see that "diva" is the backbone of the essay, with the term being mentioned 54 times in the essay. This is already a lost cause on the PC front. Whatever happens, happens. Peace out. Doc talk 06:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The sub-thread #Wording suggestions for a move to WP:TANTRUM, below, addresses this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Point of Order

The nominator stated above that, "having this essay be at a pejorative label at all is counter-productive." Changing the title of the essay to something like WP:TANTRUM is not even in line with something like WP:BIGOT. Should that essay be renamed, since it is a label? Doubtful. How about WP:BULLINCHINA? That's a label typically reserved for a clumsy oaf: very insulting! Is it the perceived sexist undertones of the label "diva" that is the real issue here? Or is it the actual using of a label in an essay title to describe an editor in a potentially negative light? There are more essays to nominate for deletion if that is the case. Doc talk 08:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a "point of order" (nothing wrong w/ OP's motion). Rather your suggestion to broaden the issue. IHTS (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is sexism, not insults to editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. In the 7+ years this essay has been in existence, it's been through 1 failed deletion nomination; and "sexism" was never brought up. The name "diva" never should have been linked to the WP article on diva to begin with. A Wikipedia diva is not a singer, and they most certainly are not exclusively female. The first sentence of the essay describes what a Wikipedia diva is, and there's no sexism implied there at all. This is PC nonsense, IMHO. Doc talk 23:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A rationale for renaming isn't a rationale for deletion. The fact that my car needs a paint touch-up is no reason to consign it to the junkyard, as it were. And times change: When this was up at MfD in 2012 (where the other rationale I raised here, about name-calling being an effective technique or inappropriate, was also the principal issue then), the gender divide was not as well-recognized an issue for WP; our #1 PR hit over the last couple of years has been the gender divide. You've already made the point many times now that you think the rename proposal is just PC nonsense. But the proponent is someone who hates PC nonsense, so maybe it isn't. Finally, no one said you personally intended to imply sexism. See the difference between wikt:imply and wikt:infer. This is about perception (i.e. likelihood of inference), not intent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• As the raiser of both of the issues, I declare them obviously severable. The sexism (latent more than blatant) is one issue. Having essays be targeted at users as if they "are" certain "types" that we're labeling is also an issue, but a different kind. The fact that we have more than one essay like that is no reason not to fix this one, for both of these reasons independently. In this particular case the former reason is probably more compelling than the latter, as it speaks to bias and editor-retention issues, not just effectiveness. The latter issue is almost entirely one of effectiveness: If you call people names instead of addressing problematic behaviors you mostly just piss them off. We renamed WP:Don't feed the trolls to WP:Deny recognition for a reason. And that one remains focused on good editors not enabling, because trolls are here for one reason only, to troll. People engaging in "my way or I quit" behavior are generally doing so for different reasons, and can be reached, but probably not by calling them names. As noted above, I'd make an exception, when it comes to directly-insulting essay titles, for WP:Don't be a jerk. It's a special case, a last resort, and if you use it you do so on pain of being a jerk yourself simply by invoking it. It's WP:IAR's answer to WP:NPA. This essay, though, doesn't rise to that level of exasper-/desperation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I like your thought process. But if something was subpar about title "Don't feed the trolls" to the point where it was changed, but the original name exists as a redirect, then really is there much difference in a world where, say, all invocations of that essay use the redirect? Wouldn't the original title then still be the effective one?) Perhaps that was discussed already during that rename (didn't check). Thx, IHTS (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  Not all invocations of what is now WP:Deny recognition are from WP:Don't feed the trolls or WP:TROLL. The community is actually clearly moving on and using the current name (or WP:DENY) with increasing frequency. This is always the case after a rename of this sort (cf. the change from WP:Naming conventions and WP:NC to WP:Article titles and WP:AT, for another example among many). Not all editors adopt the change the day it happens; some don't even notice it for a year or longer. There's nothing new or upsetting about that. All change on WP is gradual.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wording suggestions for a move to WP:TANTRUM

WP:TANTRUM seems to be the option with the most support generally. It will require slight changes to the intro, but that certainly shouldn't be the reason this move is held up. I suggest something along the lines of,:

Title: Wikipedia:Don't throw tantrums

Nutshell: Don't throw tantrums to get your way, or reward tantrums with attention.

Intro: Some editors believe they are more important than others, and require regular validation of that belief. Validation is obtained by storming off the project in a huff—a "retirement" or "Wikibreak"—accompanied by a long diatribe against whatever petty issue drove them away this time. Invariably, this diatribe attracts a flood of "please don't go" messages, along with plenty of support for the departing editor's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the editor gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

Elsewhere, simply replace the term "diva" with "tantrum thrower", etc.

--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Tantrum thrower?" I'd rather see the essay deleted! WP:BRAT has a better ring to it, but it's been claimed. Shucks. Technically this request is related to WP:PRAM, and I oppose merging this essay with that one. Because they are two different things entirely. Doc talk 02:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, "too bad" that name/label/box is already in use and you'll have to find another not in use. Since you seem to not be satisfied unless you can name-call/label/put in a box/categorize editors as you see fit. IHTS (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stop trolling my comments, IHTS. Your unhelpful remarks constitute a personal attack. I don't want to interact with you further and I request that if you must comment on something I said: comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. Doc talk 21:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did comment on your position made clear in this thread. You advocate for name-calling and editor-labelling essay names (e.g. "Diva", "Brat"). God knows how you defend that position while chiding me for PA and not "commenting on content". (Go figure.) IHTS (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to any particular outcome, but have to point out that a tantrum is a term for a behavioral outburst, a thing, not a person. A "diva" is a label for a person. They're completely different types of term. While one could descend into name-calling by including the words "tantrum thrower", there's no reason for us to do so. Thus, the objection that "tantrum thrower" is name-calling is not actually an objection to the WP:TANTRUM idea, just to Cuchullain's specific essay-wording suggestions (which, in his defense, were made they way they were to propose minimal change to the existing wording). I get the sense that fans of WP:DIVA's present name trying every angle, even contradictory ones, to prevent the name of this essay being changed. First it's a "this is just PC nonsense" complaint (which is not borne out by the number of editors in favor of a rename), then a "we might as well just delete it, because it would have to be totally rewritten" complaint (which is an unreasonable ultimatum argument remarkably similar to what this essay is about), then a complaint about minor wording changes when it's pointed out that we don't have to rewrite much. This new don't-merge-to-WP:PRAM "objection" is a red herring; no one has proposed such a merger. Just because two essays might make analogy to childish behavior patterns of different sorts doesn't mean they have to be moved into the same page.

But this isn't even a slightly challenging writing task to begin with. Whatever the title, the sort of minimal rewrite in question could be effectuated without a name-calling problem by replacing "diva"/"divas" in the text with phrases like "editor engaging in tantrum behavior", "threatening to quit", "reliance on ultimatums", etc. – simple descriptions of behavior (and also not the same term over and over, avoiding a repetitiveness issue). This would be even less of a change than WP:TROLL went through on its way to WP:DENY. All that said, I think it should be rewritten a little more to focus on behaviors to avoid rather than behaviors to label people with. This, too, would be a minor change.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you have several times now alluded to me having "diva-esque" behavior. Ironically, one of the editors who wrote a lot of this essay is, in fact, himself a diva?! You have little clue what this essay is about if you think that I am a diva. You saw a potentially politically incorrect buzzword. There is no need to rewrite this essay; and you will not be a crusader against "name-calling" injustice if it is, sadly, rewritten. Doc talk 04:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you were being a diva, I simply suggest that it's ironic for any opponents of a rename-and-partial-rewrite to resort to psychodramatic ultimatum tactics, when that's the main approach of the high-maintenance editing behavior this essay is about. So is psychological projection, BTW. I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions from this. Did you have something substantive to respond with, about how to improve this page, or just your own assumption of personal persecution? And why does that tactic sound familiar, too? Why does WP:AOBF (see above about assumptions of personal attacks) also ring a bell in relation to this page? The very fact that you're responding to such simple observations with a how-dare-you-call-me-a-diva response is essentially a clear proof of what's wrong with the current page name and it's labeling approach, without even approaching the gender-related issue (so much for the "it's just PC nonsense" proposition). BTW, do you really think I don't recognize any behavior covered in this essay in my own editing history? The actual value of it is precisely that does not describe some incurable "type", but a pattern of editorial behaviors and habits than can be consciously altered. The ability to recognize these unhelpful behaviors and avoid them is the principle message of the essay, even in its current wording. This is something of a "behaviors to avoid" counterpoint to WP:Arguments to avoid.

Why would it be "sad" that a page on a wiki could be rewritten? The entire purpose of wikis is to be rewritten. While some particular edit could be infelicitous, and subject to reversion or revision, the ability of editors to change a page like this is not some "great wrong", and the general assumption across all wikis is that pages continue to be edited and improved over time, which necessarily often entails substantial rewriting. I know you know this, so I'm mystified why you seem to take the attitude that this somehow doesn't apply to this particular page alone. The only clue seems to be that you are "one of the editors who wrote a lot of this essay", as you have pointed out at least three times (which sounds a lot like another behavior detailed in this essay, BTW). It's understandable to feel a little proprietary or parental toward something you've invested some time in, but that's an emotion we all have to restrain here, under the WP:Five Pillars principle that our contributions will be "mercilessly edited". I'm not sure what you're on about with the "crusader" reference; that's essentially a variant of Godwin's law, likening your debate opponents to a wave of medieval genocidal would-be conquerors instead of 20th-century ones who felt they were following in Crusader footsteps. I have no "crusade" against all name-calling (I support the retention of WP:JERK, WP:SPADE, WP:DUCK, and WP:DENY, all of which involve labeling problematic editors and pseudo-editors who will not be reformed). As various supporters of a rename agree, it's simply counter-productive in this case or any case like it, where we're trying to change unhelpful behavior by otherwise-useful editors, not get rid of trolls/vandals who are WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia (the essay itself even draws this distinction clearly). Rather than argue any further about whether it should be rewritten, or why, or how, I've just taken the time to produce a sample revision to work with. Seems far more productive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A true Wikipedia diva is not capable of changing his/her behavior. There is therefore no advice to give a WP diva that will be heeded. This never was intended as an advice essay, but rather a way to recognize that one is possibly dealing with such an editor. Doc talk 10:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"a way to recognize that one is possibly dealing with such an editor". That's hardly how labels work. They prejudice others to see someone negatively, to cement in place an oversimplified view of someone (basically, to de-humanize them). They dismiss the worth of further consideration about someone, lube the wheels to ostracize someone "not of the body", encourage smug belief "we are better and in good standing" (basically, us-versus-them). (History is replete with examples. WP can't do any better?!) IHTS (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I've already covered elsewhere up there that the vast majority of "diva" behavior is by normally-productive editors (often subject-matter experts in academia) who feel cornered and frustrated. They're not insane people psychologically incapable of adjusting their behavior. (Though the two categories could overlap. I decline to state whether I think I've encountered such a case before.) The goals Doc9871 wants to achieve with the page (providing a way to recognize these behavior patterns) is still served by a rewrite, like the one I did in the /sandbox, but additional ones are also served, like helping frustrated editors not be disruptive, and reminding people encountering someone lashing out that they probably aren't crazy and just need to be steered. It doesn't serve the unspoken goal of goading tantrum throwers into exploding totally and leaving for good. If someone is really nuts and prone to that sort of thing, the essay won't help them in any way, and they'll explode no matter what, so for that "goal" it really doesn't matter one way or another how the page is worded.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. Goals I want to achieve? The page already exists as it is, here, right now. The goals you want to achieve is a total rewrite, watering down the entire thing. You simply do not understand the point of the essay. You really don't. You saw "diva" and decided to right a great wrong. Write a counter essay, for the love of all things that matter. Doc talk 05:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Semantic equivocation over intended vs. twistable meaning of "goal" is just lawyering, and transparent. I think we all understand the point/goals of the essay; you won't stop browbeating us all with it: It's to label "divas" as some supposedly objectively definable class of people with an innate inability to change, and help other editors shun them instead of collaborating. It's based on bad-faith assumptive, pseudo-psychological bullshit, and it makes this an attack page with no encyclopedic purpose. In the course of doing a constructive rewrite, I already did write a counter-essay, in effect, so your request is already fulfilled. I'm entirely confident that most of what I wrote would be kept over most of the original hostile piece, if this comes down to a merge discussion in the end.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop pretending you don't just want it deleted. And write a counter essay. There is no consensus to rewrite this essay on your "terms": and I will fight this PC nonsense until the bitter end. And don't you accuse me of "bad faith", ever!!!! This essay defines people who are not good faith contributors here, but mainly narcissistic types. Live and learn. Doc talk 05:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The pledge to WP:BATTLEGROUND is noted. I have not accused you of bad faith, just observed that the "divas are a type and cannot be cured" nonsense is assumptive of bad faith. (Maybe it's more of an assumption of a mental incompetence indistinguishable in effect from bad faith on the part of "divas", I guess. Whatever it is, its still a crappy, dehumanizing thing for the essay to assume.) I have to repeat what I already said, since you missed it the first time: 'In the course of doing a constructive rewrite, I already did write a counter-essay, in effect, so your request is already fulfilled. I've been consistently arguing to keep the essay and alter its "get the hell off Wikipedia" tone. If I wanted it deleted, I would have gone to WP:MFD and made completely different arguments. It's incoherent to demand that I write an opposing piece to the current version (which does not belong to you, BTW), and then berate me with "There is no consensus to rewrite" when I do so. I haven't done anything to the actual essay page. I did that redraft in response to your earlier assertions that it couldn't be redrafted without losing all its meaning, to demonstrate that it can. "Be careful what you wish for." You keep going on about "PC nonsense", but there are at least half a dozen rationales expressed by commenters here for a rename, only one of which can be characterized as "PC", by people who do not distinguish between particular noxious arguments about language and gender relations, and every argument anyone could ever possibly make that touched on that subject. (And that's important; "that dog has a black nose" does not mean "all dog have black noses".)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"...divas are a type and cannot be cured" is exactly what the essay is about! It's about a small subset of editors. Not just some random schmuck having a "hissyfit" or a "tantrum". You brought in the word "insane", which is a total red herring. A true "diva" cannot be cured? Damn right! It's not an advice essay! You are not expert on divas. That is for sure. Doc talk 06:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess that means you, then, are an "expert" on the topic?! • You say it's not an "advice essay", yet the topic of the 2nd of 2 sections is "Dealing with divas". Even the essay title, "Don't feed the divas", is in the form of giving advice. • "It's about a small subset of editors." Don't really know the purpose of your pointing that out, but, it seems rather disingenuous, considering that your activity on the essay has included expanding its potential application to more & more editors. (Before your involvement the essay described "divas" as long-term users who feel they are more important than other editors, who require validation of same, storm off project in order to get validation, need to be right in petty disputes, remind others of their level of contribution, show same on an elaborate user page, threaten to leave the project, retire often but never more than a few days. After your involvement beginning June 30, 2012, the description was expanded by your edits to incorporate those who don't admit fault for edit warring, for WP:ABF, or for WP:OWN [9/6/2012]; users who are disruptive, or make PAs [9/6/2012]; users who use WP:IAR to ignore consensus [10/9/2012]; users who WP:HARASS or WP:BATTLE other editors [10/10/2012]; users who are "extremely uncivil" [10/10/2012]; users who disagree with or retire after a block [10/14/2012]; and users who complain of being bothered by "wikicops" [4/20/14]. You also changed a sentence which stated that divas "never stay away for more than a few days" after retiring as a consequence from being blocked, to "rarely stay away for more than a few days" [10/14/2012] - thus incorporating people who permanently quit/retire or leave the project for substantial length of time as a result of their disagreement over their block.) IHTS (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The expansion did not "include" just anyone who exhibits the behaviors, in some sort of blanket way. These are behaviors that this type of editor exhibits. Denying that divas exist for the sake of political correctness doesn't actually mean they don't exist. Doc talk 05:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your response makes much sense. (The essay contains section "Spotting divas", which by its descriptions presumably provides the reader a functional way to identify a Wiki diva. And you added descriptive elements [listed above] to the section. ["These are behaviors that this type of editor exhibits."] What you seem to be saying is that somehow "Wiki diva" is pre-defined and pre-understood by anyone reading the essay, and that your additional descriptive elements don't aid identification, but simply further describe divas already defined?! [Making circular logic. The essay tells via characteristics how to "spot a diva". You added characteristics. The egg still came before the chicken.]) IHTS (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:TANTRUM is more juvenile, more offensive, and less to the accurate point than the current. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft revision

I've produced a draft revision at Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas/sandbox. It retains all of the points and much of the language, while recasting it in terms of behaviors to avoid (while also retaining the "what to do about it" section for other editors). It makes a few missing points (e.g. about factions as well as entourages, and the folly of pursuing credentialism in a personally-identifiable manner); removes several counter-productive WP:BEANS implications that high-maintenance behavior is actually a great tactic (there were at least four of those!); works in links to a bunch of additional policies, guidelines and essays; etc. It even retains one mention of "diva" (well into the piece, after it's clear that it's not gender-loaded) so people know why that would be redirecting there, and includes also various other keywords from naming ideas above (conniption, hissy-fit, tantrum, enabling, entitlement, etc). It also works in at least one link to each of the "See also" items (and removes some from that section that aren't really very helpful to link there). And shuffles a few minor points around for better flow. It's not perfect, but it's something to work with, and it proves that the piece can quite easily be rewritten as an advice page for those exhibiting such behaviors, rather than a "get the hell off Wikipedia" page. It only took about an hour and half, less time that I've spent discussing such a shift on this talk page. Feel free to edit the draft, but if you want to produce a radically different draft, please use a separate sandbox, so we can weigh the merits of different approaches.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.