Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas

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)

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)