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

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Keep. A cheap and "petty retaliatory" move by the angry diva editor Kumioko. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with the essay and its use. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unless I am still considered a newcomer, keep. --MuZemike 23:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]