Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't feed the divas


Of course this will be seen as a petty retaliatory statement in lieau of recent actions but in actuality I have been contemplating submitting this for sometime. This page is both Bitey and insulting to those who have been around for a while. Everyone gets upset and everyone has a Wikibreak for some reason eventually. All too often this page is added to discussion just to rub salt in the wounds and only proves to aggrivate the situation in most cases. It provides no value to the project whatsoever and is used more often than it should be and gets more weight than it deserves as a mere essay. Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A cheap and "petty retaliatory" move by the angry diva editor Kumioko. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that by making this comment, you are doing the same thing that the nominator claims the essay is used for. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the essay and its use. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere I have pointed out the MeatballWiki "Goodbye" essay; it has a connection to our DIVA essay in the form of the toxic concept of the entitled "vested contributor", a contributor who requires indulgence from the community while riding roughshod over community rules. Our own WP:No vested contributors essay covers some of that aspect. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - though I do agree that it's used to "rub salt in wounds" - However I believe it is a valid essay that does explain a problem without being aggressive or overly rude. The essay is pointed to in many cases instead of personal comments by editors and thus avoids  in my opinion personal attacks that may be written in a childish and rude manner. I am not sure what incident your referring to above, but the vast majority of  editors do not need wikibreaks or get blocked or have ownership problems here on Wikipedia. Its an essay that is geared towards a very small portion of editors.Moxy (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - How is this in any way helpful? It seems to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and is just a very bad idea. Name calling just doesn't belong here. Anything of value could be merged to WP:TROLL, I suppose, but not convinced there is much here worth keeping. - jc37 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past I have been a supporter of humour pages, and even diversions like games in user space. I'm not so blind as to not see that this "can" fill a valid purpose. the problem is that, as I think many on this page are very aware, things like this are regularly abused and used to enflame, rather than cool a discussion/situation. All I need do is look to this discussion itself to see some (albeit minor) examples of that. But it looks to me that this will be another case of IWANTIT trumping policy (civility, etc.)
 * (Now of course, if I wanted one of you to trout me with the page, in order to further illustrate it's misuse, I should storm off in a dramatic exit, right?: )
 * Well, I'm ready for my closeup, Mr.Demille : ) - jc37 18:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider, while it's true that sometime a "diva retirement" is a "spontaneous emotional reaction" to not getting one's way, I suspect that sometimes it's an intentional calculated move. The existence of this essay might give somebody whose losing a battle pause before pulling that shit in the first place. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, accurately documents recurring behavior pattern on Wikipedia and provides suggestions on how to cut the drama short. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per moxy and serekofvulcan but perhaps we should consider using the same conventions when linking to this essay as we do for WP:DICK. Rarely, if at all, should this essay be used when referring to an individual editor. And believe me, there have been plenty of times I've been tempted to use both to tell someone whose acting like a putz to STFU --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this essay is a little biting (in the sense of sarcastic) I don't see how it's WP:BITEy (in the sense of biting newcomers) since divas, by definition, are quite unlikely to be new users, but rather people who have been here quite a while. This is one of those essays, like "don't be a dick", that describes undesirable behavior and how to deal with it, and in that sense it's appropriate for the WP namespace. It's kinda rude to call another editor a diva (yes, Binksternet, I'm talking to you) but that would be the case whether or not this essay existed. 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:Do not feed the trolls is a new-user version of WP:DIVA, for more established users. If you're new and not trolling or if you're experienced and not being a Diva, it doesn't apply to you. I can't at all see how WP:BITE applies, given that this is specifically for long-standing members of the community. Page does no harm to the encyclopedia, is well-linked-to, and is frankly some good advice for dealing with troublesome editors who fit into the Diva idiom. Achowat (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wrote this a while back about a certain pattern of behavior I had observed over time. I kept it impersonal because it's less about identifying an individual and more about identifying a pattern of behavior that is sometimes disruptive. Indeed, when others have tried to add specific editor references to the essay, I've reverted, because it's not about any individual. It seems as if this nom was made by someone who was stung by an accusation of diva-ism. If that is the case, then I suggest (s)he confront the editor who made the accusation, not delete what was intended as a light, mostly harmless, observational essay. ATren (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo card - 02.jpg --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My intent is not to respond to all comments or to argue the point but I want to respond to this one specific comment. I appreciate that this essay doesn't point fingers at any one editor. However, reading through the links to when this was used, its nearly always used in a Bitey way and in reference to or directed at, an editor. So although you may not have intended that when you wrote it that is how it is being used. Additionally, since the community seems incapable or unwilling to take action against editors who would use it in such a way, inappropriately, the only thing left is to simply remove it from use. You need not take my word for it, nor my history, look at the history of the use of this essay in the What links here list. It will not take you long to realize that the pattern of behavior this essay is meant to reflect is trumped by a pattern of behavior of Bite and various other essays and policys. --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So does this extend to any page that documents bad editor behavior? Almost any essay which documents bad editor behavior can be used to attack someone in this way. As an extreme example, if someone posts a link to WP:VANDAL, is that grounds to remove that too? Look, I'm sorry you were offended by someone posting a link to this essay, but the solution is deal with the editors who attack in this way, not to remove every essay which can possibly be used to attack someone. I guess another way of saying it is: "essays don't attack editors, editors attack editors" ;-) ATren (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no I don't think they all need to be deleted. It just seems to me that there is a difference to referring to someone as a Vandal or a Troll for like behavior than to refer to an editor as a bitchy woman that must have her way exactly, or no way at all. often rude and belittles people, believes that everyone is beneath her and thinks that she is so much more loved than what she really is. selfish, spoiled, and overly dramatic. I think that of all of the various essays we have denoting and describing editor behavior, particularly those who have been around a while and would seemingly have done a fair bit of good, to refer to them as a "Diva", is not a very good way to thank them for their service. At this point though its clear to me that I am in the minority in this feeling however and I expect this MFD to be closed soon. Frankly as I expected. In my years here I have found that the majority of the people who edit in Wikipedia are typically very smart, almost nerdy and many, myself included have a certain social ineptitude that makes them somewhat iffy when dealing with people. For all the positive things about Wikipedia, an abundance of patience and welcoming, friendly behavior is not normally among them and IMO this essay does not help that. --Kumioko (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless I am still considered a newcomer, keep. --MuZemike 23:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SNOW keep and a whale for the nominator (a trout doesn't cut it) for this exceedingly and blatantly WP:POINTy nomination. Maybe a lot of grief would be saved if, when somebody feels an essay or term like "diva" has been applied to them unfairly instead of "thank[ing] them for their service", they stopped to consider that there might be a reason the essay or term was applied, and worked to remedy the problem instead of making the problem worse.. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the whale, I always wanted a Squish! Who wouldn't. To your Snow I wanted to respond with the Jamaican Bobsled Team clause because the process in determining if this is even something worth keeping for editors to bash each other with, is important. --Kumioko (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Documents, humourously, a Wiki-truth. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 04:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Otherwise I'm leaving. I mean it. Right now. Don't think I wouldn't. Then you'll all be sorry. pablo 08:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you'll need this...
 * --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, that will be just the job for when I go ... really soon ... pablo  17:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you'll leave in a minute and a huff? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:POINTy nomination by a butthurt editor . See ANI. The page is humorous, at least to of some us. I've added it to my user page after I had retired for about 12 hrs following my first long and acrimonious disputation on ANI. I've grown a thicker skin since then, enough to laugh at myself sometimes. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of your comment is "salt rubbing" and you should consider striking it. However, I agree with the rest and being able to laugh at oneself is a plus in this place but for frak's sake please lose the damn "jimbo head". IMHO should be the next thing we nominate for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've struck the potentially uncivil phrase, however I stick to my opinion that the nomination is the epitome of pointy editing. He was shown a link to this essay on ANI, and he immediately nominated it for deletion. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Who would MFD such a Wikipedia page at a time like this? M&#39;encarta (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is an excellent example for how the system can be used by partitioning grievances to many pages that are by itself not an attack, but when used properly are used exactly for that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the above. I think we need another Dramaout before long - this past week has perfectly illustrated why this page is both accurate and necessary. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sort of surprised someone would make this sort of Pointy nomination right went hey are under some scrutiny. But then I suppose that is the idea of Pointy action. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per SarekOfVulcan and others. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a pointy nomination to me. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP:SNOW .The page is humorous.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite humorous but makes a good point. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - one of the best essays there is. Robofish (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Super ReContra Keep - Like Frank Zappa put it: Don't kid yourself, everybody in this room is wearing a uniform...--Filliou (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep!/Delete?/Not sure?/ Not an !vote, but I cannot see consensus to delete. The essay seems to cover material which is in policy at WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not compulsory). Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or? A very committed Do Not Know from- NewbyG  ( talk) 23:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Pointy nomination, no need to delete, humorous and useful page.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification and to all those that are saying this is a Pointy nomination. Pointy doesn't really apply. This Essay is neither a policy, nor a guideline, and therefore there is nothing to "discredit". It is merely a funny quip that an editor wrote illustrating a segment of activity they witnessed on Wikipedia and presented in a funny way. Thats it. It is, however, frequently used to illustrate a Point and more often than not (as can be seen even here) used as a means to inflame the situation or discussion. So those that are using this little piece of editory nonesense as a "policy or guideline" are misreadaing its purpose. For what its worth though I also think that the essay Dick should be deleted as well. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Time to close this
 * Its clear to me at this point that the consensus is that we should keep this essay, that is almost always used as an insult towards editors in discussions because its "Funny". So we may as well close it so that we can continue to enable Wikipedians to be hostile towards one another (sarcasm intended). --Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.