Essays Mid‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Mid This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1][2][3]   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. I suggest many alternatives below (WP:Deny entitlement, etc.). If we kept the current name style, I'm not sure what a good replacement term would be. "Royalty" came to mind first.  — 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)][reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Refutation of 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.[4][5][6] 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)[reply]

Refutation of 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? [7][8][9] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]