Wikipedia - Benutzerbeiträge [de]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2015-06-15T08:30:15Z

Doc9871: Not a singer either

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil, hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Self-importance: The diva is (or claims to be) the most important and knowledgeable user in Wikipedia, or at least in their pet topic of preference. Divas have no shame in saying so at every chance they get. They want flowers, parades, and a monument built in the skies with their name plastered...and, in extreme cases, divas will consider themselves the last hope of Wikipedia against the ruin brought by lesser editors.
; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva. Some may argue with "walls of text" while others opt for curt dismissals. Either way: the diva wins.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva. Another trick is to propose that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth|the "truth" should prevail over anything else]].
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Persecution complex: Divas are constantly challenged by annoying editors who have nothing better to do than play "wiki cop". If the diva were allowed to operate freely, these abusers would move on from their bedeviled target and create reams of improvements, like the diva does. But the pitchfork-bearing mob is never too far from their heels.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva's extraordinary "specialness" demands the presumption that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute. If the diva eventually gets blocked for any of this, he will not accept that he made something wrong and try to change it: he will instead complain about the outrage, and ask to place the administrator's head on a pike. If anything, the diva will just [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|be more subtle]] when violating policies.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|''Qualis artifex pereo'']]: "What an artist dies in me!"]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2015-06-15T08:29:35Z

Doc9871: Undid revision 666914048 by SMcCandlish (talk) Not a reliable source.

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil, hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Self-importance: The diva is (or claims to be) the most important and knowledgeable user in Wikipedia, or at least in their pet topic of preference. Divas have no shame in saying so at every chance they get. They want flowers, parades, and a monument built in the skies with their name plastered...and, in extreme cases, divas will consider themselves the last hope of Wikipedia against the ruin brought by lesser editors.
; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva. Some may argue with "walls of text" while others opt for curt dismissals. Either way: the diva wins.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva. Another trick is to propose that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth|the "truth" should prevail over anything else]].
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Persecution complex: Divas are constantly challenged by annoying editors who have nothing better to do than play "wiki cop". If the diva were allowed to operate freely, these abusers would move on from their bedeviled target and create reams of improvements, like the diva does. But the pitchfork-bearing mob is never too far from their heels.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva's extraordinary "specialness" demands the presumption that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute. If the diva eventually gets blocked for any of this, he will not accept that he made something wrong and try to change it: he will instead complain about the outrage, and ask to place the administrator's head on a pike. If anything, the diva will just [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|be more subtle]] when violating policies.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|''Qualis artifex pereo'']]: "What an artist dies in me!"]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Deepsea Challenger

2014-06-10T06:36:02Z

Doc9871: /* Challenger Deep */ pt

{{Italic title}}
{|{{Infobox ship begin}}
{{Infobox ship image
|Ship image=[[Image:Deepsea challenger deep-diving submersible DVC1.svg|300px|alt=Drawing of the DCV1]]
|Ship caption=Drawing of the DCV1, based on imagery from the ''Deepsea Challenger'' website (not to scale)
}}
{{Infobox ship career
|Hide header=
|Ship country=Australia
|Ship flag={{shipboxflag|Australia}}
|Ship name= ''Deepsea Challenger''
|Ship ordered=
|Ship awarded=
|Ship builder=Acheron Project Pty Ltd
|Ship original cost=
|Ship laid down=
|Ship launched=26 January 2012
|Ship sponsor=
|Ship christened=
|Ship completed=
|Ship acquired=
|Ship commissioned=
|Ship recommissioned=
|Ship decommissioned=
|Ship maiden voyage=
|Ship in service=2012
|Ship out of service=
|Ship renamed=
|Ship reclassified=
|Ship refit=
|Ship struck=
|Ship reinstated=
|Ship homeport=
|Ship identification=
|Ship nickname=
|Ship fate=
|Ship status=
|Ship notes=
|Ship badge=
}}
{{Infobox ship characteristics
|Hide header=
|Header caption=
|Ship type=[[Deep-submergence vehicle]]
|Ship tonnage=
|Ship displacement= 11.8 tons
|Ship tons burthen=
|Ship length= {{convert|7.3|m|ft|abbr=on}}
|Ship beam=
|Ship draft=
|Ship power= electric motor
|Ship propulsion= 12 thrusters
|Ship speed= {{convert|3|kn}}
|Ship range=
|Ship endurance= 56 hours
|Ship test depth= {{convert|11000|m|ft|abbr=on}}
|Ship complement= 1
|Ship sensors=
|Ship armor=
|Ship notes=
}}
|}

{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2012}}
'''''Deepsea Challenger''''' (DCV 1) is a {{convert|7.3|m}} [[Submersible#Deep-diving manned submersibles|deep-diving submersible]] designed to reach the bottom of [[Challenger Deep]], the deepest known point on Earth. On March 26, 2012, Canadian film director [[James Cameron]] piloted the craft to accomplish this goal in the second manned dive reaching the Challenger Deep.<ref name="NGS-20120325">{{cite web |last=Than |first=Ker |title=James Cameron Completes Record-Breaking Mariana Trench Dive |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120325-james-cameron-mariana-trench-challenger-deepest-returns-science-sub/ |date=March 25, 2012 |publisher=[[National Geographic Society]] |accessdate=2012-03-25}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20120325">{{cite news |last=Broad |first=William J. |title=Filmmaker in Submarine Voyages to Bottom of Sea |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/science/james-camerons-submarine-trip-to-challenger-deep.html |date=March 25, 2012 |work=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=March 25, 2012 }}</ref><ref name="MSNBC-20120325">{{cite news |agency=AP |title=James Cameron has reached deepest spot on Earth |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46850002/ns/technology_and_science-science |date=March 25, 2012 |work=[[MSNBC]] |accessdate=March 25, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/9/2856838/james-cameron-deepsea-challenger-submarine-dive-world-record |title=James Cameron and his Deepsea Challenger submarine |publisher=theverge.com |first=Nathan |last=Ingraham |date=March 9, 2012 |accessdate=March 10, 2012}}</ref> Built in [[Sydney|Sydney, Australia]] by the research and design company Acheron Project Pty Ltd, ''Deepsea Challenger'' includes scientific sampling equipment and high-definition [[Stereoscopy|3-D cameras]], and reached the ocean's deepest point after roughly two hours of descent from the surface.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17013038 |title=Race to the bottom of the ocean: Cameron |work=BBC |date=February 22, 2012 |accessdate=March 10, 2012}}</ref>

== Development ==

''Deepsea Challenger'' was secretly built in Australia, in partnership with the [[National Geographic Society]] and with support from [[Rolex]], in the Deepsea Challenge program. The construction of the submersible was headed by Australian engineer [[Ron Allum]].<ref name="RA">{{cite web |last=Allum |first=Ron |title=Ron Allum |url=http://www.ronallum.com |accessdate=2012-07-23}}</ref> Many of the submersible developer team members hail from Sydney's cave diving fraternity including Allum himself with many years cave diving experience.

Working in a small engineering workshop in Leichhardt, Sydney, Allum created new materials including a specialized structural [[syntactic foam]] called Isofloat,<ref name="isofloat">{{cite web |last=Allum |first=Ron |title=Isofloat |url=http://www.ronallum.com/products/isofloat/graphs/ |accessdate=2012-07-23}}</ref> capable of withstanding the huge compressive forces at the {{convert|11|km|mi}} depth. The new foam is unique in that it is more homogeneous and possesses greater uniform strength than other commercially available syntactic foam yet, with a specific density of about 0.7, will float in water. The foam is composed of very small hollow glass spheres suspended in an epoxy resin and comprises about 70% of the submarine's volume.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www2.electronicproducts.com/Hollywood_director_James_Cameron_to_pilot_submarine_to_the_bottom_of_Mariana_Trench-article-fajb_cameron_deepsea_explorer_march2012-html.aspx
|accessdate = 9 April 2012
|title = Hollywood director James Cameron to pilot submarine to the bottom of Mariana Trench
|first = Jeffrey
|last = Bausch
|date = 12 March 2012
}}
</ref>

The foam's strength enabled the ''Deepsea Challenger'' design to incorporate thruster motors as part of the infrastructure mounted within the foam but without the aid of a steel skeleton to mount various mechanisms. The foam supersedes [[gasoline]] filled tanks for flotation as used in the historic submarine, [[Bathyscaphe Trieste|Bathyscaphe ''Trieste'']].

Allum also built many innovations, necessary to overcome the limitations of existing products (and presently undergoing development for other deep sea vehicles). These include pressure balanced oil filled thrusters;<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://ronallum.com/products/pbof-electronics/thruster-with-integral-driver/
|title=Thruster with integral PBOF driver
|accessdate=2012-07-23
}}</ref>
light emitting diode lighting arrays; new types of cameras; and fast reliable penetration communications cables allowing transmissions through the hull of the submersible.<ref name="team_allum">
{{cite web
|url=http://deepseachallenge.com/the-team/ron-allum/
|title=Ron Allum
|work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic
|accessdate=2012-07-24
}}</ref> Allum gained much of his experience developing the electronic communication used in Cameron's Titanic dives in filming [[Ghosts of the Abyss]], Bismarck and others.<ref name="team_allum" /><ref>
{{cite news
|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/person/578374/Ron-Allum/filmography
|title=Ron Allum Filmography
|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
|accessdate=2012-05-08
}}</ref>

Power systems for the submarine were supplied by lithium batteries that were housed within the foam and can be clearly seen in publicity photographs of the vessel.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://ronallum.com/products/pbof-electronics/lipo-cell-packs/
|title=Lithium polymer (LIPO) cell packs
|accessdate=2012-07-08
}}</ref> The lithium battery charging systems were created and designed by the Australian Leichhardt team.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}

The submersible contains over 180 onboard systems, including batteries, thrusters, life support, 3D cameras, and LED lighting.<ref name="systemstechnology">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/the-sub/systems-technology |title=Systems Technology |accessdate=May 8, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref> These interconnected systems are monitored and controlled by a [[programmable automation controller]] (PAC) from [[Temecula]], California-based controls manufacturer [[Opto 22]].<ref>
{{cite news
|url=http://www.pe.com/business/business-headlines/20120511-industry-temecula-firm-gets-role-in-james-cameron-project.ece
|title=Temecula Firm Gets Role in James Cameron Project
|newspaper=[[The Press-Enterprise]]
|date=11 May 2012
|first=Tiffany
|last=Ray
|accessdate=2012-05-17
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite news
|url=http://www.nctimes.com/business/filmmaker-james-cameron-pilots-to-bottom-of-mariana-trench-thanks/article_d055fcc5-08e9-5ab4-95fa-ae4e294b19c1.html
|title=Filmmaker James Cameron pilots to bottom of Mariana Trench, thanks to Temecula's Opto 22
|newspaper=[[North County Times]]
|date=9 April 2012
|first=Pat
|last=Maio
|accessdate=2012-05-08
}}</ref><ref name="deepseachallenger">{{cite web |url=http://www.opto22.com/lp/deepsea_challenger.aspx |title= Performance Under Pressure – Off-the-shelf SNAP PAC System controls DEEPSEA CHALLENGER for James Cameron's historic dive |publisher=Opto 22 |accessdate=May 8, 2012 }}</ref><ref>
{{cite press release
|url=http://www.opto22.com/documents/2005a_Press_Release_Opto22_DeepSeaChallenge_wire.pdf
|title=James Cameron's Historic Return to Mariana Trench Relies on Latest Advances in Engineering and Technology
|publisher=[[Opto 22]]
|date=3 April 2012
|format=pdf
|accessdate=2012-05-08
}}</ref> During dives, the control system also recorded depth, temperature, pressure, battery status, and other data, and sent it to the support ship at three-minute intervals.<ref name="deepdivingsub">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/expedition-journal/weve-got-a-deep-diving-sub |title=We've Got a Deep-Diving Sub |accessdate=May 8, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref>

The crucial structural elements, such as the backbone and pilot sphere that carried Cameron, were engineered by the [[Tasmania]]n company Finite Elements.<ref>{{cite news |title=Tassie engineer elated by Cameron's dive |author=David Beniuk |url=http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/tassie-engineer-elated-by-camerons-dive-20120327-1vwaj.html |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |date=March 27, 2012 |accessdate=March 27, 2012}}</ref> The design of the interior of the sphere, including fire proofing, condensation management and mounting of control assemblies was undertaken by Sydney-based industrial design consultancy Design + Industry.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.design-industry.com.au/2012-portfolio/rugged-deepsea-challenger-pilot-sphere
|title=Deepsea Challenger Pilot Sphere
|publisher=Design and Industry
|accessdate=2012-12-01
}}</ref>

== Specifications ==
The submersible features a pilot sphere measuring {{convert|1.1|m|in|abbr=on}} diameter, large enough for only one occupant.<ref name="subfacts">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/the-sub/sub-facts/ |title=Sub Facts |accessdate=March 10, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref> The sphere, with steel walls {{convert|64|mm|abbr=on}} thick, was tested for its ability to withstand the required {{convert|114|MPa|psi|abbr=on|lk=on}} of pressure in a pressure chamber at [[Pennsylvania State University]].<ref name="pilotsphere">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/the-sub/pilot-sphere/ |title=Pilot Sphere |accessdate=March 10, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref> The sphere sits at the base of the {{convert|11.8|t|ST|lk=on}} vehicle. The vehicle operates in a vertical attitude, and carries {{convert|500|kg|lb|abbr=on}} of ballast weight that allows it to both sink to the bottom, and when released, rise to the surface. If the ballast weight release system fails, stranding the craft on the seafloor, a backup [[Galvanic corrosion|galvanic]] release is designed to corrode in salt water in a set period of time, allowing the sub to automatically surface.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/the-sub/systems-technology/ | title=Systems & Technology | accessdate=March 10, 2012 | work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref> ''Deepsea Challenger'' is less than one-tenth the weight of its predecessor of fifty years, the Bathyscaphe ''Trieste''; the modern vehicle also carries dramatically more scientific equipment than ''Trieste'', and is capable of more rapid ascent and descent.<ref name="thenVSnow">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/the-sub/then-and-now/ |title=Then and now |accessdate=March 10, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref>

== Early dives ==
In late January 2012, to test systems, Cameron spent three hours in the submersible while submerged just below the surface in Australia's Sydney Naval Yard.<ref name="firstdive20120131">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/expedition-journal/first-dive-in-sydney-naval-yard/ |title=Jim Takes First Piloted Dive |date=January 31, 2012 |accessdate=March 10, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref> On February 21, 2012, a test dive intended to reach a depth of over {{convert|1000|m|abbr=on}} was aborted after only an hour because of problems with cameras and [[life support system]]s.<ref name="camerahell20120222">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/expedition-journal/camera-hell/ |title=Camera Hell |date=February 22, 2012 |accessdate=March 10, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref> On February 23, 2012, just off [[New Britain|New Britain Island]], Cameron successfully took the submersible to the ocean floor at {{convert|991|m|ft|abbr=on}}, where it made a rendezvous with a yellow [[Remotely operated underwater vehicle|remote operated vehicle]] operated from a ship above.<ref name="deepdive20120223">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/expedition-journal/weve-got-a-deep-diving-sub/ |title=We've Got a Deep-Diving Sub |date=February 23, 2012 |accessdate=March 10, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref> On February 28, 2012, during a seven-hour dive, Cameron spent six hours in the submersible at a depth of {{convert|3700|m|ft|abbr=on}}. Power system fluctuations and unforeseen currents presented unexpected challenges.<ref name="postdive20120229">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/expedition-journal/post-dive-truths-revealed/ |title=Postdive Truths Revealed |date=February 29, 2012 |accessdate=March 10, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref><ref name="criticalstep20120228">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/expedition-journal/a-critical-step/ |title=A Critical Step |date=February 28, 2012 |accessdate=March 10, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref>

On March 4, 2012, a record-setting dive to more than {{convert|7260|m|ft|abbr=on}} stopped short of the bottom of the [[Solomon Sea#Deepest point|New Britain Trench]] when problems with the vertical thrusters led Cameron to return to the surface.<ref name="cameron20120308lovedit">{{cite web |last=Cameron |first=James|title=You'd have loved it|url=http://deepseachallenge.com/latest-news/cameron-to-walsh-on-record-8k-dive-youd-have-loved-it/|date=March 8, 2012 |publisher=[[National Geographic Society]]|accessdate=March 26, 2012 }}</ref> Days later, with the technical problem solved, Cameron successfully took the submersible to the bottom of the New Britain Trench, reaching a maximum depth of {{convert|8221|m|ft|abbr=on}}.<ref name="cameron20120308lovedit" /> There, he found a wide plain of loose [[sediment]], [[Sea anemone|anemones]], [[jellyfish]] and varying habitats where the plain met the walls of the canyon.<ref name="cameron20120308lovedit" />

== Challenger Deep ==
On March 18, 2012, after leaving the testing area in the relatively calm [[Solomon Sea]], the submersible was aboard the surface vessel ''[[Mermaid Sapphire]],'' docked in [[Apra Harbor]], Guam, undergoing repairs and upgrades, and waiting for a calm enough ocean to carry out the dive.<ref name="oceanswells">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/expedition-journal/ocean-swells/ |title=Ocean Swells |date=March 10, 2012 |accessdate=March 13, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref><ref name="hiveofwork">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/expedition-journal/a-hive-of-work |title=A Hive of Work |date=March 18, 2012 |accessdate=March 21, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref> By March 24, 2012, having left port in Guam days earlier, the submersible was aboard one of two surface vessels that had departed the [[Ulithi]] atoll for the Challenger Deep.<ref name="weekend0324">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/latest-news/mariana-trench-mission-this-weekend/ |title=Mariana Trench Mission This Weekend? |date=March 24, 2012 |accessdate=March 24, 2012 |work=Deepsea Challenge (National Geographic)}}</ref><ref name="ottawa">{{cite web |url=http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Cameron+heads+ocean+floor/6339437/story.html |title=Cameron heads to ocean floor |work=Ottawa Citizen |date=March 21, 2012 |accessdate=March 23, 2012}}</ref>

On March 26, 2012 local time it was reported that it had reached the bottom of the [[Mariana Trench]].

[[File:DeepSea Challenger descent graph-2.svg|Position:left|500px|Graph of the descent of DeepSea Challenger to Challenger Deep on March 25, 2012 UTC, based on Paul Allen tweets during the dive.]]
[[File:DeepSea Challenger ascent graph-2.svg|Position:right|500px|Graph of the ascent of the DeepSea Challenger from Challenger Deep on March 26, 2012 UTC, based on Paul Allen tweets during the dive.]]

''These two graphs show James Cameron's ''Deepsea Challenger'''s descent and ascent during this record setting dive – times are in [[UTC]], so the dive started on March 25 and ended on March 26 when UTC times are used, but if Guam times are used the entire dive occurred on March 26, 2012. Both graphs are based on Paul Allen's tweets during the time when he was monitoring the progress of the dive from his yacht, ''[[Octopus (yacht)|Octopus]]''.<ref name="Paul Allen Tweets from Challenger Deep">{{cite web |last=Allen |first=Paul G |title=Paul Allen Tweets from Challenger Deep |url=https://twitter.com/#!/PaulGAllen/ |date=27 March 2012 |publisher=twitter.com |accessdate=27 March 2012 }}</ref> There were not as many tweets coming up as there were going down, so there is not as much data for the ascent.''

Descent, from the beginning of the dive to arrival at the seafloor, took two hours and 37 minutes – almost twice as fast as the descent of ''Trieste.''<ref name="bostonglobe">{{cite news |url=http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/03/26/titanic-director-cameron-completes-journey-earth-deepest-point/OiTQKefLYU4Yfjkxm08KGP/story.html |title=Director James Cameron tours earth’s deepest point |date=March 27, 2012 |accessdate=March 29, 2012 |work=The Boston Globe |author=William J. Broad}}</ref> A Rolex watch, "worn" on the sub's robotic arm, continued to function normally throughout the dive.<ref name="rolexDSC">{{cite web |url=http://deepseachallenge.com/the-expedition/rolex-deepsea-history/ |title=Rolex Deep-sea History |accessdate=April 1, 2012 |work=deepseachallenge.com}}</ref><ref name="rolexWatch">{{cite web |url=http://www.rolex.com/en#/world-of-rolex/sports-and-culture/exploration/james-cameron-about-the-rolex-deepsea-challenge |title=About the Rolex Deepsea Challenge |accessdate=April 1, 2012 |work=rolex.com}}</ref> Not all systems functioned as planned on the record-breaking dive: bait-carrying landers were not dropped in advance of the dive because the sonar needed to find them on the ocean floor was not working, and hydraulic system problems hampered the use of sampling equipment.<ref name="bostonglobe" /> Nevertheless, after roughly three hours on the seafloor and a successful ascent, further exploration of the Challenger Deep with the unique sub was planned for later in the Spring of 2012.<ref name="bostonglobe" />

== Records ==
On March 26, 2012, Cameron reached the bottom of the Challenger Deep, the deepest part of the [[Mariana Trench]]. The recorded depth was {{convert|10898.4|m|ft}} when ''Deepsea Challenger'' touched down.<ref name="James Cameron Now at Ocean's Deepest Point">{{cite web |author=National Geographic |title=James Cameron Now at Ocean's Deepest Point |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120325-james-cameron-mariana-trench-challenger-deep-deepest-science-sub/ |date=25 March 2012 |publisher=National Geographic Society |accessdate=25 March 2012 }}</ref> It was the fourth ever dive to the Challenger Deep and the second manned dive (with a maximum recorded depth slightly less than that of ''Trieste'''s 1960 dive). It was the first solo dive and the first to spend a significant amount of time (three hours) exploring the bottom.<ref name="NGS-20120325" />

== Similar efforts ==
As of February 2012, several other vehicles are under development to reach the same depths. The groups developing them include:
*[[Triton Submarines]], a Florida based company that designs and manufactures private submarines, whose vehicle, ''[[Triton 36000/3]]'', will carry a crew of three to the seabed in 120 minutes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://tritonsubs.com/submersibles/triton-360003/ |title= Triton 36,000 Full Ocean Depth Submersible |publisher=Triton Submarines |accessdate=March 25, 2012 }}</ref>
*[[Virgin Oceanic]], sponsored by [[Richard Branson]]'s [[Virgin Group]], is developing a submersible designed by [[Graham Hawkes]], ''[[DeepFlight Challenger]]'',<ref name=VOteam>Virgin Oceanic, [http://www.virginoceanic.com/team/operations-team/ Operations Team] (accessed March 25, 2012)</ref> with which the solo pilot will take 140 minutes to reach the seabed.<ref name=VirginOceanic>{{cite web |url=http://www.virginoceanic.com |title=Virgin Oceanic |publisher=Virgin Oceanic |accessdate=March 1, 2012}}</ref>
* [[DOER Marine]],<ref name="About DOER Marine">{{Cite web |url=http://www.doermarine.com/?page_id=238|publisher=DOER Marine |accessdate=March 27, 2012 |title=About DOER Marine}}</ref> a [[San Francisco Bay Area]] based marine technology company established in 1992, that is developing a vehicle, ''[[Deepsearch]]'' (and ''[[Ocean Explorer HOV Unlimited]]''),<ref name="DOER Deep Search"/> with some support from [[Google]]'s [[Eric Schmidt]] with which a crew of two or three will take 90 minutes to reach the seabed, as the program [[Deep Search]].<ref name="DOER Deep Search">{{cite web |url=http://www.doermarine.com/?page_id=704 |title=Deep Search |publisher=DOER Marine |accessdate=March 25, 2012 }}</ref>

== Continued service ==
''Deepsea Challenger'' has been donated to [[Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution]] <ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/deepsea_challenger|title= James Cameron Partners With WHOI|author= |date= 26 March 2013|work= |publisher= National Geographic|accessdate=27 March 2013}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Challenger expedition]]
* [[Deep-sea exploration]]
* [[Timeline of diving technology]]

== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}

== External links ==
* [http://deepseachallenge.com/ deepseachallenge.com]
* [http://deepseachallenge.com/video/james-cameron-breaks-solo-dive-record/ NGS video: Cameron's return from Challenger Deep]
{{James Cameron}}
{{extreme motion}}

[[Category:Deep-submergence vehicles|Deepsea Challenger]] 
[[Category:Oceanographic expeditions|Deepsea Challenge]] 
[[Category:2012 in science]]
[[Category:James Cameron]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2014-04-20T11:33:02Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ f

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva. Some may argue with "walls of text" while others opt for curt dismissals. Either way: the diva wins.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Persecution complex: Divas are constantly challenged by annoying editors who have nothing better to do than play "wiki cop". If the diva were allowed to operate freely, these abusers would move on from their bedeviled target and create reams of improvements, like the diva does. But the pitchfork-bearing mob is never too far from their heels.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva's extraordinary "specialness" demands the presumption that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2014-04-20T11:26:31Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ Walt Frazier quote

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva. Some may argue with "walls of text" while others opt for curt dismissals. Either way: the diva wins.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Persecution complex: Divas are constantly challenged by annoying editors who have nothing better to do than play "wiki cop". If they were allowed to operate freely, these abusers would move on from their bedeviled target and create reams of improvements, like the diva does. But the pitchfork-bearing mob is never too far from their heels.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva's extraordinary "specialness" demands the presumption that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2014-04-20T11:14:58Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ Add

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva. Some may argue with "walls of text" while others opt for curt dismissals. Either way: the diva wins.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Persecution complex: Divas are constantly challenged by annoying editors who have nothing better to do than play "wiki cop". Were they allowed to operate freely, these abusers would move on from their target and create reams of improvements, like the diva does. But the pitchfork-bearing mob is never too far from their heels.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva's extraordinary "specialness" demands the presumption that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2014-04-17T11:15:02Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ Fix

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva. Some may argue with "walls of text" while others opt for curt dismissals. Either way: the diva wins.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva's extraordinary "specialness" demands the presumption that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2014-04-17T07:20:11Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ Add

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva. Some may argue with "walls of text" while others opt for curt dismissals. Either way: the diva wins.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2014-04-17T06:43:05Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ -

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2014-04-17T06:38:19Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ Expand

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Divas never forget their enemies, and they rarely forgive them. Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges (perhaps even a one-word remark) that have irreversibly and forever destroyed your credibility in their mind is a diva hallmark. If you want to make amends and move on, the path to apologizing with a diva is down a narrow one-way street. 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. Once you cross them (they are highly sensitive to criticism of their behavior even in jest), you're no longer of use.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

John List (Massenmörder)

2014-03-07T06:05:39Z

Doc9871: Reverted edits by 98.14.191.224 (talk) to last version by Doc9871

{{About|the mass murderer|the economist of the University of Chicago|John A. List}}
{{Infobox criminal
| name = John List
| image = Small ListMug.jpg
| image_size =
| caption = Mugshot of John List, c.2005
| birthname = John Emil List
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1925|09|17|mf=yes}}
| birth_place = [[Bay City, Michigan]], U.S.
| death_date = {{Death date and age|2008|03|21|1925|09|17|mf=yes}}
| death_place = [[Trenton, New Jersey]], U.S.
| death_cause = Complications of [[pneumonia]]
| nationality = American
| other_names = Robert Peter "Bob" Clark
| occupation = Accountant
| religion = [[Lutheran]]
| criminal_charge = Five counts of [[first degree murder]]
| penalty = Five consecutive life terms
| conviction_status = Deceased
| spouse = {{marriage|Helen List|1952|1971|reason=widowed}} Delores Miller Clark (m. 1985; div.)
| children = {{Plainlist|
* Patricia List
* John List, Jr.
* Frederick List
}}
| parents = John Frederick List (1859–1944) Alma List (1887–1971)
| time_at_large = 17 years, 6 months, 23 days
| date = November 9, 1971
| country = United States
| locations = [[Westfield, New Jersey]]
| targets = {{Plainlist|
* Alma List
* Helen List
* Patricia List
* John List, Jr.
* Frederick List
}}
| fatalities = 5
| weapons = {{Plainlist|
* [[9mm|9 mm]] [[Steyr 1912|Steyr handgun]],
* [[.22 LR|.22 caliber]] [[revolver]]
}}
| apprehended = June 1, 1989
| imprisoned = May 1, 1990
}}

'''John Emil List''' (September 17, 1925 – March 21, 2008), sometimes labeled the '''Bogeyman of Westfield''',<ref>Di Ionno, M (March 25, 2008). The bogeyman of Westfield, a ghost story that won't end. [http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2008/03/the_bogeyman_of_westfield_a_gh.html ''Star Ledger'' archive]. Retrieved 26 September 2013.</ref> was a convicted multiple [[murder]]er and long-time fugitive. On November 9, 1971 he killed his wife, mother, and three children in their home at 431 Hillside Avenue in [[Westfield, New Jersey]], and then disappeared. He had planned the murders so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years who assumed a new identity and remarried, List was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989 after the story of his murders was broadcast on the television program ''[[America's Most Wanted]]''. List was found guilty of [[first degree murder]] and sentenced in 1990 to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. He died in 2008.

==Personal background==
Born in [[Bay City, Michigan|Bay City]], [[Michigan]], List was the only child of [[German American]] parents, John Frederick List (1859–1944) and Alma Maria Barbara Florence List (1887–1971). He was a devout [[Lutheran]] and taught [[Sunday school]]. He served in the [[U.S. Army]] during [[World War II]] and later was given an [[ROTC]] commission as a [[Second Lieutenant]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Ryzuk|first=Mary S.|year=1990|title=Thou Shalt Not Kill|publisher=Popular Library|isbn=0-445-21043-5|page=101}}</ref> He attended the [[University of Michigan]] in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]], where he earned a [[bachelor's degree]] in [[business administration]] and a [[master's degree]] in [[accounting]]. List met his wife, Helen, in 1951, and they married shortly thereafter.

==Murders==
On November 9, 1971 List methodically killed his entire family: his wife, Helen, 45; his mother, Alma, 84; and his children — Patricia, 16, John, Jr., 15, and Frederick, 13. The murder weapons were his own [[9mm]] [[Steyr 1912]] [[Semi-automatic pistol|semi-automatic handgun]]<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 117.</ref> and his father's [[Colt guns|Colt]] [[.22 caliber]] [[revolver]].<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 285.</ref> He first shot his wife in the back of the head and his mother above the left eye while his children were at school. When Patricia and Frederick came home they were each shot in the back of the head. After making himself lunch, List drove to his bank to close his own and his mother's bank accounts, and then to his elder son's school to watch him play in a [[soccer]] game. After driving John, Jr. home he shot him once in the back of the head, then at least ten more times when the body began twitching.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List placed the bodies of his wife and children on sleeping bags in the ballroom of their 19-room [[Victorian architecture|Victorian]] home. He left his mother's body in her apartment in the attic. In a five-page letter to his pastor, found on the desk in his study, he wrote that he saw too much evil in the world, and he had ended the lives of his family members to save their souls. He then cleaned up the various crime scenes, turned on all the lights, tuned the radio to a religious station, and departed.<ref name="NYT20081228"/>

The murders were not discovered for nearly a month, due in part to the family's reclusiveness and refusal to socialize, and in part to notes sent by List to the children's schools and part-time jobs stating that the family would be in [[North Carolina]] for several weeks, staying with Helen's mother. He also stopped the family's milk, mail and newspaper deliveries.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> Finally, neighbors noticed that lights inside the mansion — which had been illuminated day and night for weeks, with no apparent activity within — were burning out one by one, and called police.<ref>Ramsland, K: John List. [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/list/1.html Crime Library]. Retrieved 26 September 2013.</ref>

The case became the second most notorious crime in New Jersey history, after the kidnapping and murder of the [[Lindbergh Baby]]. A nationwide manhunt was launched. The family car was found parked at [[Kennedy Airport]], but there was no evidence that List had boarded a flight.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> Police investigated hundreds of leads without results.<ref>''Notorious'', television series, Episode: "To Save Their Souls", 2005</ref> Alma was flown to [[Frankenmuth, Michigan]] and interred at the Saint Lorenz Lutheran Cemetery. Helen and her three children were buried at [[Fairview Cemetery (Westfield, New Jersey)|Fairview Cemetery]] in Westfield.<ref>Ramsland, K: John List. [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/list/11.html Crime Library archive]. Retrieved 27 September 2013.</ref>

On May 21, 1989 List's case was broadcast on the television program ''[[America's Most Wanted]]'', which at the time had been on the air less than a year.<ref>Notorious AMW Fugitive John List Dead at 82 (24 March 2008). [http://www.amw.com/features/feature_story_detail.cfm?id=2613 amw.com archive]. Retrieved 27 September 2013.</ref> The presentation included an [[Age progression|age-progressed]] clay [[Bust (sculpture)|bust]] sculpted by [[forensic]] artist [[Frank Bender]], which turned out to bear a close resemblance to List's actual appearance.<ref>Fox, M (30 July 2011): Frank Bender, ‘Recomposer’ of Faces of the Dead, Dies at 70. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/31bender.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 ''New York Times'' archive]. Retrieved 29 September 2013.</ref> List was located and arrested less than two weeks after the episode was broadcast.

==Relocation, arrest, and trial==

List settled in [[Denver, Colorado]] in early 1972 and resumed working as an accountant under the name Robert Peter "Bob" Clark. He later said that he chose the name because it had belonged to one of his college classmates, although the real Bob Clark claimed that he had never known List.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6}}</ref> In the early 1980s he moved to [[Midlothian, Virginia]], and in 1985 married divorcee Delores Miller.

On June 1, 1989 he was arrested at a [[Richmond, Virginia]] accounting firm after a neighbor viewed the ''America's Most Wanted'' broadcast, recognized the profile, and alerted authorities.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fbi.gov/richmond/about-us/history-1/history |title=FBI Richmond Division History |publisher=Federal Bureau of Investigation |accessdate=19 December 2011}}</ref><ref>Ryzuk, pp.396-399</ref> He was [[extradition|extradited]] to [[Union County, New Jersey]] in late 1989. He continued to stand by his alias for several months; but finally, faced with irrefutable evidence — including the matching of his [[fingerprint]]s with List's military records, and with evidence found at the crime scene — he confessed his true identity on February 16, 1990.<ref>Ryzuk, p.452</ref>

At trial, List testified that he was faced with grave financial difficulties in 1971. He had lost his job as an accountant, and hid his unemployment from his family by sitting at the local bus station each day. He owed $11,000 on his mortgage and was skimming from his mother's bank accounts.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> He was also dealing with his wife's [[syphilis#tertiary|tertiary syphilis]], contracted from her first husband and concealed from List for 18 years, which had "transformed her from an attractive young woman to an unkempt and paranoid recluse," according to testimony.<ref>[http://www.goleader.com/list/ The List Murders Stun Westfield In 1971] By Kathy Halverson, February 17, 2001 For The Westfield Leader and The Times. Accessed June 28, 2007</ref><ref name="NYT19900407">{{Cite news|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DE1630F934A35757C0A966958260 |title=Slaying Suspect Saw 2 Choices, Doctor Testifies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=April 7, 1990 | first=Joseph F. | last=Sullivan | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

A court-appointed psychiatrist testified that List suffered from [[obsessive-compulsive personality disorder]], and saw only two solutions to his situation: accept [[Social programs in the United States#Welfare|welfare]], or kill his family and send their souls to [[Heaven]].<ref name="NYT19900407"/> Welfare was an unacceptable option, he reasoned, because it would expose the family to ridicule and violate his [[authoritarian]] father's teachings regarding the care and protection of family members.<ref name="NYT19900407"/>

On April 12, 1990 List was convicted of five counts of [[first degree murder]], and on May 1 was sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. (The [[death penalty]] was not an option in New Jersey at the time.) At his sentencing hearing, he denied direct responsibility for his actions: "I feel that because of my mental state at the time, I was unaccountable for what happened. I ask all affected by this for their forgiveness, understanding and prayer."<ref>Associated Press (May 20, 1990). Judge Sentences Family Killer to Life in Prison. [http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-02/news/mn-174_1_life-sentences ''Los Angeles Times'' archive]. Retrieved 26 September 2013.</ref> He filed an appeal of his convictions on grounds that his judgment had been impaired by [[post-traumatic stress disorder]] due to military service in [[World War II]] and [[Korean War|Korea]]. He also contended that the letter he left behind at the crime scene — essentially his confession — was a confidential communication to his pastor, and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Both arguments were unsuccessful.<ref>Stout, D (March 25, 2008). John E. List, 82, Killer of 5 Family Members, Dies. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/nyregion/25list1.html ''NY Times'' archive]. Retrieved 26 September 2013.</ref>

List later expressed a degree of remorse for his crimes: "I wish I had never done what I did," he said. "I've regretted my action and prayed for forgiveness ever since."<ref>List and Goodrich (2006): ''Collateral Damage: The John List Story'', p. 80.</ref> When asked by [[Connie Chung]] in 2002 why he had not taken his own life, he said he believed that [[suicide]] would have barred him from Heaven, where he hoped to be reunited with his family.<ref name="NYT_19830325"/>

==Death==
List died from complications of [[pneumonia]] at age 82 on March 21, 2008, while in prison custody at a [[Trenton, New Jersey]] hospital.<ref name="NYT_19830325">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/nyregion/25list1.html?em&ex=1206590400&en=54ef92d43724f8e2&ei=5087%0A |title=John E. List, 82, Killer of 5 Family Members, Dies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=March 25, 2008 | first=David | last=Stout | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref> In reporting his death the [[Newark, New Jersey|Newark]] ''[[Star-Ledger]]'' referred to him as "the bogeyman of Westfield".<ref>[http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2008/03/the_bogeyman_of_westfield_a_gh.html "The bogeyman of Westfield, a ghost story that won't end" by Mark Di Ionno, The Star Ledger]</ref> His body was not immediately claimed,<ref name="BayCity">{{Cite news|url=http://www.mybaycity.com/scripts/Article_View.cfm?ArticleID=2465&NewspaperID=0 |title=Killer John List's Body Lies Unclaimed in New Jersey Morgue |publisher=mybaycity.com |date=March 27, 2008}}</ref> though he was later buried next to his mother in [[Frankenmuth, Michigan]].<ref>[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=25511539 John Emil List (1925-2008) - Find a Grave]</ref>

==Home arson==
The List home was destroyed by [[arson]] ten months after the murders, a crime which remains unsolved. Destroyed along with the home was the ballroom's [[stained glass]] skylight, rumored to be a signed [[Louis Comfort Tiffany|Tiffany]] original worth over $100,000.<ref name="NYT20081228"/>

==In popular culture==
* In 2008 [[John Walsh (television host)|John Walsh]], the host of ''America's Most Wanted'', donated Bender’s bust of List to a forensic science exhibit at the privately owned [[National Museum of Crime & Punishment]] in [[Washington, DC]].
* The 1987 film ''[[The Stepfather (1987 film)|The Stepfather]]'' and the [[The Stepfather (2009 film)|2009 remake]] were loosely based on the List case.<ref>{{cite news|last=Ryan|first=Desmond|title=How Profitable Sequels Succeed: They Just Bring 'em Back Alive|url=http://articles.philly.com/1989-12-03/entertainment/26158069_1_stepfather-mortal-coil-predator-ii|accessdate=19 April 2013|newspaper=Philadelphia Inquirer|date=December 3, 1989}}</ref>
* [[Robert Blake (actor)|Robert Blake]] portrayed List in the 1993 film ''[[Judgment Day: The John List Story]]''.
* List's crimes and disappearance were an inspiration for the character of [[Keyser Söze]] in the 1995 film ''[[The Usual Suspects]]''.<ref name="DVDcom">''The Usual Suspects'' DVD commentary featuring [[Bryan Singer]] and [[Christopher McQuarrie]], [2000]. Retrieved 27 September 2002</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Books==
* ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'' Timothy B. Benford and James P. Johnson, iUniverse, 332 pp., ISBN 0-595-00720-1
* ''Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders'' Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6
* ''Collateral Damage: The John List Story '' John E. List and Austin Goodrich, iUniverse, Inc., 130pp., ISBN 0-595-39536-8
* ''Thou Shalt Not Kill'' Mary S. Ryzuk, Warner Books, 509pp., ISBN 0-445-21043-5

==External links==
{{Portal|New Jersey|Biography|Crime}}
* [http://www.goleader.com/list/ Newspaper articles on John List]
* [http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/1.html John List, famous murder - The Crime Library]
* {{Find a Grave|25511539|name=John Emil List}}
* {{IMDb title|0401220|American Justice Episode #169: To Save Their Souls}}
{{Stepfather series}}
{{Authority control|VIAF=23760246}}

{{Persondata 
| NAME = List, John
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES = List, John Emil
| SHORT DESCRIPTION = American mass murderer
| DATE OF BIRTH = September 17, 1925
| PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| DATE OF DEATH = March 21, 2008
| PLACE OF DEATH = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:List, John}}
[[Category:1925 births]]
[[Category:2008 deaths]]
[[Category:20th-century American criminals]]
[[Category:American accountants]]
[[Category:American Lutherans]]
[[Category:America's Most Wanted]]
[[Category:American mass murderers]]
[[Category:American military personnel of World War II]]
[[Category:American murderers of children]]
[[Category:American people convicted of murder]]
[[Category:American people of German descent]]
[[Category:American people who died in prison custody]]
[[Category:American prisoners and detainees]]
[[Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment]]
[[Category:Burials in Michigan]]
[[Category:Criminals from Michigan]]
[[Category:Deaths from pneumonia]]
[[Category:Familicides]]
[[Category:Filicides]]
[[Category:Infectious disease deaths in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Matricides]]
[[Category:People convicted of murder by New Jersey]]
[[Category:People extradited within the United States]]
[[Category:People from Bay City, Michigan]]
[[Category:People from Westfield, New Jersey]]
[[Category:People with personality disorders]]
[[Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by New Jersey]]
[[Category:Prisoners who died in New Jersey detention]]
[[Category:United States Army soldiers]]
[[Category:University of Michigan alumni]]

John List (Massenmörder)

2014-03-07T04:32:33Z

Doc9871: Reverted edits by 98.14.191.224 (talk) to last version by DoctorJoeE

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2014-02-14T22:46:18Z

Doc9871: Undid good faith revision 595511091 by Titodutta (talk) No citation is needed for this. It's a borderline humour essay.

{{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2013-11-05T07:50:45Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ +

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2013-10-31T05:34:20Z

Doc9871: Undid revision 579570322 by Ihardlythinkso (talk) I'm not waiting for BRD in this case. I call bullshit. Take it to the talk page.

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

<blockquote>'''"Wikipedia needs me far more than I need Wikipedia."'''</blockquote>

== Spotting divas ==

The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2013-10-31T04:27:46Z

Doc9871: No links, paraphrased. Simply the perfect summation of the diva mentality, You can't make this shit up. Brilliant!

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

<blockquote>'''"Wikipedia needs me far more than I need Wikipedia."'''</blockquote>

== Spotting divas ==

The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2013-07-29T05:45:39Z

Doc9871: /* Dealing with divas */ Add

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over "inferior" editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the helpers: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Divas usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters; but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[q:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

John List (Massenmörder)

2013-04-17T19:53:46Z

Doc9871: /* Arrest and trial */ ...

{{About|the mass murderer|the economist of the University of Chicago|John A. List}}
{{Infobox murderer
| name = John List
| image = Small ListMug.jpg
| image_size =
| caption = Mugshot of John List, c.2005
| birthname = John Emil List
| occupation = Accountant
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1925|09|17}}
| birth_place = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| death_date = {{Death date and age|2008|03|21|1925|09|17}}
| death_place = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
| cause = Pneumonia
| penalty = Five consecutive life terms
| parents = John Frederick List, father, 1859–1944 and Alma List, mother, 1887–1971
| spouse = Helen List 1926–1971, (m. 1952–1971, her death) Delores Clark (Miller), (m. 1985-?)
| date = November 9, 1971
| time =
| targets = Mother, wife, and children
| locations = [[Westfield, New Jersey]]
| fatalities = 5; bullet wounds to head and body
| weapons =<li> [[9mm|9 mm]] [[Steyr 1912|Steyr handgun]],<li> [[.22 LR|.22 caliber]] [[revolver]]
}}
'''John Emil List''' (September 17, 1925 – March 21, 2008) was an [[Americans|American]] fugitive convicted of [[murder]]. On November 9, 1971, he killed his wife, mother, and three children in their home in [[Westfield, New Jersey]], and then disappeared. He had planned the murders so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years, List, after assuming a false identity and remarrying, was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989, after the story of his murders was broadcast on ''[[America's Most Wanted]]''. List was found guilty of the murders and sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. He died of pneumonia while in prison custody in 2008.

==Personal background==
Born in [[Bay City, Michigan|Bay City]], [[Michigan]], List was the only child of [[German American]] parents, John Frederick List (1859–1944) and Alma Maria Barbara Florence List (1887–1971). He was a devout [[Lutheran]] and taught [[Sunday school]]. He served in the [[U.S. Army]] during [[World War II]] and later was given an [[ROTC]] commission as a [[Second Lieutenant]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Ryzuk|first=Mary S.|year=1990|title=Thou Shalt Not Kill|publisher=Popular Library|isbn=0-445-21043-5|page=101}}</ref> He attended the [[University of Michigan]] in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]], where he earned a [[bachelor's degree]] in [[business administration]] and a [[master's degree]] in [[accounting]]. List met his wife, Helen, in 1951, and they married shortly after.

==Murders==
On November 9, 1971 List methodically killed his entire family: his wife, Helen, 45; his mother, Alma, 84; and his children — Patricia, 16, John, Jr., 15, and Frederick, 13. The murder weapons were his own [[9mm]] [[Steyr 1912]] [[Semi-automatic pistol|automatic handgun]]<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 117.</ref> and his father's [[.22 caliber]] [[revolver]].<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 285.</ref> He first shot his wife in the back of the head and his mother above the left eye while his children were at school. When Patricia and Frederick came home they were each shot in the back of the head. After making himself lunch, List drove to John, Jr.'s school to watch him play in a [[soccer]] game. After the game he drove his elder son home and shot him once in the back of the head, then at least ten more times when the body began twitching.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List placed the bodies of his wife and children on sleeping bags in the ballroom of their 19-room [[Victorian architecture|Victorian]] home. He left his mother's body in her apartment in the attic. After cleaning up the crime scene he departed, leaving on all of the house lights and the radio. In a letter to his pastor, found on his desk in his study, he wrote, "Mother is in the attic. She was too heavy to move." He added that he had prayed over the bodies before leaving.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The murders were not discovered for a month, due in part to the Lists' reclusiveness, and to notes sent by List to the children's schools and part-time jobs stating that the family would be in [[North Carolina]] for several weeks. He also stopped the family's milk, mail and newspaper deliveries. After emptying his own and his mother's bank accounts, he fled in the family car, a [[Chevrolet Impala]].<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The case quickly became the second most infamous crime in New Jersey history, surpassed only by the kidnapping and murder of the [[Lindbergh Baby]]. A nationwide manhunt was launched. His Impala was found parked at [[Kennedy Airport]], but there was no evidence that he boarded a flight.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> The police checked out hundreds of leads without results.<ref>''Notorious'', television series, Episode: "To Save Their Souls", 2005</ref> The victims were buried at [[Fairview Cemetery (Westfield, New Jersey)|Fairview Cemetery]] in Westfield.

John List moved to Colorado and assumed the identity Robert "Bob" Clark and in 1985 married divorcee Delores Miller.

In 1989 New Jersey law enforcement approached the producers of the television show ''[[America's Most Wanted]]'' about doing a show on List; at the time, it was the oldest unsolved case the show had ever featured. The broadcast included an [[Age progression|age-progressed]] clay [[Bust (sculpture)|bust]], which, as it turned out, looked remarkably similar to List, even though he had been missing for 18 years.

The bust was sculpted by [[forensic]] artist [[Frank Bender]], who had successfully captured many aging fugitives and identified decomposed bodies via his art. To imagine what an older List would look like, he consulted [[forensic psychology|forensic psychologist]] [[Richard Walter]], who created a [[offender profiling|psychological profile]]. He looked at photographs of List's parents and predicted his appearance, giving List a receding hairline and sagging jowls. Bender and Richard Walter were particularly praised for one final touch: they accurately predicted the type of [[eyeglasses]] frames that List would be wearing, by taking into account his personality type and the kind of eyeglasses he had favored in the past.

[[John Walsh]], the host of ''America's Most Wanted'', called Bender's work the most brilliant example of detective work that he had ever seen. Walsh kept Bender’s bust of List in a place of honor in his office for many years, and in 2008 donated it to a forensic science exhibit at the privately owned [[National Museum of Crime & Punishment]].

==Arrest and trial==
List was arrested on June 1, 1989, nearly 18 years after killing his family.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fbi.gov/richmond/about-us/history-1/history |title=FBI Richmond Division History |publisher=Federal Bureau of Investigation |accessdate=19 December 2011}}</ref> At the time he was employed by a [[Richmond, Virginia]] accounting firm where he worked while living under the fictitious name Robert "Bob" Peter Clark. List had chosen the name because it had belonged to one of his college classmates, who later stated that he had never known List.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6}}</ref> List had lived in [[Denver, Colorado]] and [[Midlothian, Virginia]] before his arrest, having remarried and resumed working as an accountant. Upon viewing the broadcast, a friend of the Clarks recognized the subject of the profile as a neighbor and contacted the authorities. FBI agents arrested List at the office where he worked after visiting his home and speaking with his current wife, Delores.<ref>Ryzuk, pp.396-399</ref>

List was [[extradition|extradited]] to New Jersey as Robert Clark and sent to the [[Union County, New Jersey]] jail to await trial. He continued to stand by his alias despite overwhelming evidence - including his [[fingerprint]]s at the crime scene - of both his true identity and his guilt.

List made his first admission of his identity to a fellow inmate while he was still in the Union County Jail. During a casual discussion List made reference to his military service during World War II, and the inmate said to List (using his alias), "Bob, that might be just what you need to prove that you're not John List. They took your fingerprints when you joined the military, didn't they?"{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List hesitated for a moment, then lowered his head and mumbled, "Yes, they did." He then excused himself, saying that he was tired and needed a nap. The next day, List said, "Richard, my name is John List, not Bob Clark." List thereafter corrected any inmate or staff member who called him "Bob" or "Mr. Clark."{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List would not admit his true identity to the court until February 16, 1990, eight months and fifteen days after his capture.<ref>Ryzuk, p.452</ref>

On April 12, 1990, List was convicted in a New Jersey court of five counts of [[first-degree murder]]. On May 1, he was sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. List would express remorse for his crimes, stating, "I wish I had never done what I did. I've regretted my action and prayed for forgiveness ever since."<ref>List and Goodrich (2006): ''Collateral Damage: The John List Story'', p. 80.</ref> In a 2002 interview with [[Connie Chung]], when asked why he had not taken his own life, he said he believed that [[suicide]] would have barred him from [[Heaven]], where he hoped to be reunited with his family.<ref name="NYT_19830325"/>

==Motive==
List had lost his job as an accountant and was suffering from financial problems before the murders. He would sit at the local bus station every day, hiding his unemployment from his family, and making believe he was traveling to his accountant job. He owed $11,000 on his mortgage and was skimming from his mother's bank accounts.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> He was also dealing with his wife's [[dementia]], brought on by advanced [[syphilis]] contracted from her first husband and hidden from List for 18 years.<ref>[http://www.goleader.com/list/ The List Murders Stun Westfield In 1971] By Kathy Halverson, February 17, 2001 For The Westfield Leader and The Times. Accessed June 28, 2007</ref><ref name="NYT19900407">{{Cite news|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DE1630F934A35757C0A966958260 |title=Slaying Suspect Saw 2 Choices, Doctor Testifies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=April 7, 1990 | first=Joseph F. | last=Sullivan | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List was described by a psychiatrist as having [[obsessive-compulsive personality disorder]]. A psychiatrist who interviewed List testified that he saw only two solutions to his family's financial and health problems – either go on [[Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Welfare|welfare]] or kill his family and send their souls to heaven.<ref name="NYT19900407"/> He was especially concerned about the soul of his daughter, Patty, who showed little interest in church. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}}
She was also active in the theater department, smoked marijuana, and was interested in [[Wicca]]. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} He was afraid that welfare would expose them to ridicule, show that List did not love them, and violate his own [[authoritarian]] father's teachings to always care for and protect the family.<ref name="NYT19900407"/>

==Death==
List died from complications of [[pneumonia]] at age 82 on March 21, 2008, while in prison custody at a [[Trenton, New Jersey]] hospital.<ref name="NYT_19830325">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/nyregion/25list1.html?em&ex=1206590400&en=54ef92d43724f8e2&ei=5087%0A |title=John E. List, 82, Killer of 5 Family Members, Dies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=March 25, 2008 | first=David | last=Stout | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref> In announcing his death the [[Newark, New Jersey]], ''[[Star-Ledger]]'' referred to him as the "boogeyman of Westfield".<ref>[http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2008/03/the_bogeyman_of_westfield_a_gh.html "The bogeyman of Westfield, a ghost story that won't end" by Mark Di Ionno, The Star Ledger]</ref> His body was not immediately claimed,<ref name="BayCity">{{Cite news|url=http://www.mybaycity.com/scripts/Article_View.cfm?ArticleID=2465&NewspaperID=0 |title=Killer John List's Body Lies Unclaimed in New Jersey Morgue |publisher=mybaycity.com |date=March 27, 2008}}</ref> though he was later buried next to his mother in [[Frankenmuth, Michigan]].<ref>[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=25511539 John Emil List (1925-2008) - Find a Grave]</ref>

==Home arson==
The List home was destroyed by [[arson]] ten months after the murders. Destroyed along with the home was the ballroom's [[stained glass]] skylight, rumored to be a signed [[Louis Comfort Tiffany|Tiffany]] original worth over $100,000.<ref name="NYT20081228"/>

==In popular culture==
*The 1987 film ''[[The Stepfather (1987 film)|The Stepfather]]'' and the [[The Stepfather (2009 film)|2009 remake]] were loosely based on the List case.
*[[Robert Blake (actor)|Robert Blake]] portrayed List in the 1993 film ''[[Judgment Day: The John List Story]]''.
*The Season Six episode of ''[[Law & Order]]'', "Savior" was based on the List story. This episode starred [[Ellen Pompeo]] of ''[[Grey's Anatomy]]'' fame.
*List's crimes and disappearance were an inspiration for the character of [[Keyser Söze]] in the 1995 film ''[[The Usual Suspects]]''.<ref name="DVDcom">''The Usual Suspects'' DVD commentary featuring [[Bryan Singer]] and [[Christopher McQuarrie]], [2000]. Retrieved 27 September 2002</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Books==
*''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'' Timothy B. Benford and James P. Johnson, iUniverse, 332 pp., ISBN 0-595-00720-1
*''Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders'' Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6
*''Collateral Damage: The John List Story '' John E. List and Austin Goodrich, iUniverse, Inc., 130pp., ISBN 0-595-39536-8
*''Thou Shalt Not Kill'' Mary S. Ryzuk, Warner Books, 509pp., ISBN 0-445-21043-5

==External links==
{{Portal|New Jersey|Biography|Crime}}
*[http://www.goleader.com/list/ Newspaper articles on John List]
*[http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/1.html John List, famous murder - The Crime Library]
*{{Find a Grave|25511539|name=John Emil List}}
*{{IMDb title|0401220|American Justice Episode #169: To Save Their Souls}}
{{Authority control|VIAF=23760246}}

{{Persondata 
| NAME = List, John
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =
| DATE OF BIRTH = September 17, 1925
| PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| DATE OF DEATH = March 21, 2008
| PLACE OF DEATH = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:List, John}}
[[Category:1925 births]]
[[Category:2008 deaths]]
[[Category:20th-century criminals]]
[[Category:America's Most Wanted]]
[[Category:American Lutherans]]
[[Category:American mass murderers]]
[[Category:American military personnel of World War II]]
[[Category:American murderers of children]]
[[Category:American people convicted of murder]]
[[Category:American people of German descent]]
[[Category:American people who died in prison custody]]
[[Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment]]
[[Category:Criminals from Michigan]]
[[Category:Deaths from pneumonia]]
[[Category:Familicides]]
[[Category:Filicides]]
[[Category:Infectious disease deaths in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Matricides]]
[[Category:People convicted of murder by New Jersey]]
[[Category:People from Bay City, Michigan]]
[[Category:People from Westfield, New Jersey]]
[[Category:People with personality disorders]]
[[Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by New Jersey]]
[[Category:Prisoners who died in New Jersey detention]]
[[Category:United States Army soldiers]]
[[Category:University of Michigan alumni]]
[[Category:People extradited within the United States]]

John List (Massenmörder)

2013-04-17T19:53:15Z

Doc9871: /* Arrest and trial */ fp

{{About|the mass murderer|the economist of the University of Chicago|John A. List}}
{{Infobox murderer
| name = John List
| image = Small ListMug.jpg
| image_size =
| caption = Mugshot of John List, c.2005
| birthname = John Emil List
| occupation = Accountant
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1925|09|17}}
| birth_place = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| death_date = {{Death date and age|2008|03|21|1925|09|17}}
| death_place = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
| cause = Pneumonia
| penalty = Five consecutive life terms
| parents = John Frederick List, father, 1859–1944 and Alma List, mother, 1887–1971
| spouse = Helen List 1926–1971, (m. 1952–1971, her death) Delores Clark (Miller), (m. 1985-?)
| date = November 9, 1971
| time =
| targets = Mother, wife, and children
| locations = [[Westfield, New Jersey]]
| fatalities = 5; bullet wounds to head and body
| weapons =<li> [[9mm|9 mm]] [[Steyr 1912|Steyr handgun]],<li> [[.22 LR|.22 caliber]] [[revolver]]
}}
'''John Emil List''' (September 17, 1925 – March 21, 2008) was an [[Americans|American]] fugitive convicted of [[murder]]. On November 9, 1971, he killed his wife, mother, and three children in their home in [[Westfield, New Jersey]], and then disappeared. He had planned the murders so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years, List, after assuming a false identity and remarrying, was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989, after the story of his murders was broadcast on ''[[America's Most Wanted]]''. List was found guilty of the murders and sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. He died of pneumonia while in prison custody in 2008.

==Personal background==
Born in [[Bay City, Michigan|Bay City]], [[Michigan]], List was the only child of [[German American]] parents, John Frederick List (1859–1944) and Alma Maria Barbara Florence List (1887–1971). He was a devout [[Lutheran]] and taught [[Sunday school]]. He served in the [[U.S. Army]] during [[World War II]] and later was given an [[ROTC]] commission as a [[Second Lieutenant]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Ryzuk|first=Mary S.|year=1990|title=Thou Shalt Not Kill|publisher=Popular Library|isbn=0-445-21043-5|page=101}}</ref> He attended the [[University of Michigan]] in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]], where he earned a [[bachelor's degree]] in [[business administration]] and a [[master's degree]] in [[accounting]]. List met his wife, Helen, in 1951, and they married shortly after.

==Murders==
On November 9, 1971 List methodically killed his entire family: his wife, Helen, 45; his mother, Alma, 84; and his children — Patricia, 16, John, Jr., 15, and Frederick, 13. The murder weapons were his own [[9mm]] [[Steyr 1912]] [[Semi-automatic pistol|automatic handgun]]<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 117.</ref> and his father's [[.22 caliber]] [[revolver]].<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 285.</ref> He first shot his wife in the back of the head and his mother above the left eye while his children were at school. When Patricia and Frederick came home they were each shot in the back of the head. After making himself lunch, List drove to John, Jr.'s school to watch him play in a [[soccer]] game. After the game he drove his elder son home and shot him once in the back of the head, then at least ten more times when the body began twitching.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List placed the bodies of his wife and children on sleeping bags in the ballroom of their 19-room [[Victorian architecture|Victorian]] home. He left his mother's body in her apartment in the attic. After cleaning up the crime scene he departed, leaving on all of the house lights and the radio. In a letter to his pastor, found on his desk in his study, he wrote, "Mother is in the attic. She was too heavy to move." He added that he had prayed over the bodies before leaving.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The murders were not discovered for a month, due in part to the Lists' reclusiveness, and to notes sent by List to the children's schools and part-time jobs stating that the family would be in [[North Carolina]] for several weeks. He also stopped the family's milk, mail and newspaper deliveries. After emptying his own and his mother's bank accounts, he fled in the family car, a [[Chevrolet Impala]].<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The case quickly became the second most infamous crime in New Jersey history, surpassed only by the kidnapping and murder of the [[Lindbergh Baby]]. A nationwide manhunt was launched. His Impala was found parked at [[Kennedy Airport]], but there was no evidence that he boarded a flight.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> The police checked out hundreds of leads without results.<ref>''Notorious'', television series, Episode: "To Save Their Souls", 2005</ref> The victims were buried at [[Fairview Cemetery (Westfield, New Jersey)|Fairview Cemetery]] in Westfield.

John List moved to Colorado and assumed the identity Robert "Bob" Clark and in 1985 married divorcee Delores Miller.

In 1989 New Jersey law enforcement approached the producers of the television show ''[[America's Most Wanted]]'' about doing a show on List; at the time, it was the oldest unsolved case the show had ever featured. The broadcast included an [[Age progression|age-progressed]] clay [[Bust (sculpture)|bust]], which, as it turned out, looked remarkably similar to List, even though he had been missing for 18 years.

The bust was sculpted by [[forensic]] artist [[Frank Bender]], who had successfully captured many aging fugitives and identified decomposed bodies via his art. To imagine what an older List would look like, he consulted [[forensic psychology|forensic psychologist]] [[Richard Walter]], who created a [[offender profiling|psychological profile]]. He looked at photographs of List's parents and predicted his appearance, giving List a receding hairline and sagging jowls. Bender and Richard Walter were particularly praised for one final touch: they accurately predicted the type of [[eyeglasses]] frames that List would be wearing, by taking into account his personality type and the kind of eyeglasses he had favored in the past.

[[John Walsh]], the host of ''America's Most Wanted'', called Bender's work the most brilliant example of detective work that he had ever seen. Walsh kept Bender’s bust of List in a place of honor in his office for many years, and in 2008 donated it to a forensic science exhibit at the privately owned [[National Museum of Crime & Punishment]].

==Arrest and trial==
List was arrested on June 1, 1989, nearly 18 years after killing his family.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fbi.gov/richmond/about-us/history-1/history |title=FBI Richmond Division History |publisher=Federal Bureau of Investigation |accessdate=19 December 2011}}</ref> At the time he was employed by a [[Richmond, Virginia]] accounting firm where he worked while living under the fictitious name Robert "Bob" Peter Clark. List had chosen the name because it had belonged to one of his college classmates, who later stated that he had never known List.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6}}</ref> List had lived in [[Denver, Colorado]] and [[Midlothian, Virginia]] before his arrest, having remarried and resumed working as an accountant. Upon viewing the broadcast, a friend of the Clarks recognized the subject of the profile as a neighbor and contacted the authorities. FBI agents arrested List at the office where he worked after visiting his home and speaking with his current wife, Delores.<ref>Ryzuk, pp.396-399</ref>

List was [[extradition|extradited]] to New Jersey as Robert Clark and sent to the [[Union County, New Jersey]] jail to await trial. He continued to stand by his alias despite overwhelming evidence - including his [[fingerprint]]s at the crime scene - of both his true identity and his guilt.

List made his first admission of his identity to a fellow inmate while he was still in the Union County Jail. During a casual discussion List made reference to his military service during World War II, and the inmate said to List (using his alias), "Bob, that might be just what you need to prove that you're not John List. They took your fingerprints when you joined the military, didn't they?"{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List hesitated for a moment, then lowered his head and mumbled, "Yes, they did." He then excused himself, saying that he was tired and needed a nap. The next day, List said, "Richard, my name is John List, not Bob Clark." List thereafter corrected any inmate or staff member who called him "Bob" or "Mr. Clark."{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List would not admit his true identity to the court until February 16, 1990, eight months and fifteen days after his capture.<ref>Ryzuk, p.452</ref>

On April 12, 1990, List was convicted in a New Jersey court of five counts of [[first-degree murder]]. On May 1, he was sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. List would express remorse for his crimes, ststing, "I wish I had never done what I did. I've regretted my action and prayed for forgiveness ever since."<ref>List and Goodrich (2006): ''Collateral Damage: The John List Story'', p. 80.</ref> In a 2002 interview with [[Connie Chung]], when asked why he had not taken his own life, he said he believed that [[suicide]] would have barred him from [[Heaven]], where he hoped to be reunited with his family.<ref name="NYT_19830325"/>

==Motive==
List had lost his job as an accountant and was suffering from financial problems before the murders. He would sit at the local bus station every day, hiding his unemployment from his family, and making believe he was traveling to his accountant job. He owed $11,000 on his mortgage and was skimming from his mother's bank accounts.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> He was also dealing with his wife's [[dementia]], brought on by advanced [[syphilis]] contracted from her first husband and hidden from List for 18 years.<ref>[http://www.goleader.com/list/ The List Murders Stun Westfield In 1971] By Kathy Halverson, February 17, 2001 For The Westfield Leader and The Times. Accessed June 28, 2007</ref><ref name="NYT19900407">{{Cite news|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DE1630F934A35757C0A966958260 |title=Slaying Suspect Saw 2 Choices, Doctor Testifies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=April 7, 1990 | first=Joseph F. | last=Sullivan | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List was described by a psychiatrist as having [[obsessive-compulsive personality disorder]]. A psychiatrist who interviewed List testified that he saw only two solutions to his family's financial and health problems – either go on [[Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Welfare|welfare]] or kill his family and send their souls to heaven.<ref name="NYT19900407"/> He was especially concerned about the soul of his daughter, Patty, who showed little interest in church. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}}
She was also active in the theater department, smoked marijuana, and was interested in [[Wicca]]. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} He was afraid that welfare would expose them to ridicule, show that List did not love them, and violate his own [[authoritarian]] father's teachings to always care for and protect the family.<ref name="NYT19900407"/>

==Death==
List died from complications of [[pneumonia]] at age 82 on March 21, 2008, while in prison custody at a [[Trenton, New Jersey]] hospital.<ref name="NYT_19830325">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/nyregion/25list1.html?em&ex=1206590400&en=54ef92d43724f8e2&ei=5087%0A |title=John E. List, 82, Killer of 5 Family Members, Dies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=March 25, 2008 | first=David | last=Stout | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref> In announcing his death the [[Newark, New Jersey]], ''[[Star-Ledger]]'' referred to him as the "boogeyman of Westfield".<ref>[http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2008/03/the_bogeyman_of_westfield_a_gh.html "The bogeyman of Westfield, a ghost story that won't end" by Mark Di Ionno, The Star Ledger]</ref> His body was not immediately claimed,<ref name="BayCity">{{Cite news|url=http://www.mybaycity.com/scripts/Article_View.cfm?ArticleID=2465&NewspaperID=0 |title=Killer John List's Body Lies Unclaimed in New Jersey Morgue |publisher=mybaycity.com |date=March 27, 2008}}</ref> though he was later buried next to his mother in [[Frankenmuth, Michigan]].<ref>[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=25511539 John Emil List (1925-2008) - Find a Grave]</ref>

==Home arson==
The List home was destroyed by [[arson]] ten months after the murders. Destroyed along with the home was the ballroom's [[stained glass]] skylight, rumored to be a signed [[Louis Comfort Tiffany|Tiffany]] original worth over $100,000.<ref name="NYT20081228"/>

==In popular culture==
*The 1987 film ''[[The Stepfather (1987 film)|The Stepfather]]'' and the [[The Stepfather (2009 film)|2009 remake]] were loosely based on the List case.
*[[Robert Blake (actor)|Robert Blake]] portrayed List in the 1993 film ''[[Judgment Day: The John List Story]]''.
*The Season Six episode of ''[[Law & Order]]'', "Savior" was based on the List story. This episode starred [[Ellen Pompeo]] of ''[[Grey's Anatomy]]'' fame.
*List's crimes and disappearance were an inspiration for the character of [[Keyser Söze]] in the 1995 film ''[[The Usual Suspects]]''.<ref name="DVDcom">''The Usual Suspects'' DVD commentary featuring [[Bryan Singer]] and [[Christopher McQuarrie]], [2000]. Retrieved 27 September 2002</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Books==
*''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'' Timothy B. Benford and James P. Johnson, iUniverse, 332 pp., ISBN 0-595-00720-1
*''Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders'' Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6
*''Collateral Damage: The John List Story '' John E. List and Austin Goodrich, iUniverse, Inc., 130pp., ISBN 0-595-39536-8
*''Thou Shalt Not Kill'' Mary S. Ryzuk, Warner Books, 509pp., ISBN 0-445-21043-5

==External links==
{{Portal|New Jersey|Biography|Crime}}
*[http://www.goleader.com/list/ Newspaper articles on John List]
*[http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/1.html John List, famous murder - The Crime Library]
*{{Find a Grave|25511539|name=John Emil List}}
*{{IMDb title|0401220|American Justice Episode #169: To Save Their Souls}}
{{Authority control|VIAF=23760246}}

{{Persondata 
| NAME = List, John
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =
| DATE OF BIRTH = September 17, 1925
| PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| DATE OF DEATH = March 21, 2008
| PLACE OF DEATH = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:List, John}}
[[Category:1925 births]]
[[Category:2008 deaths]]
[[Category:20th-century criminals]]
[[Category:America's Most Wanted]]
[[Category:American Lutherans]]
[[Category:American mass murderers]]
[[Category:American military personnel of World War II]]
[[Category:American murderers of children]]
[[Category:American people convicted of murder]]
[[Category:American people of German descent]]
[[Category:American people who died in prison custody]]
[[Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment]]
[[Category:Criminals from Michigan]]
[[Category:Deaths from pneumonia]]
[[Category:Familicides]]
[[Category:Filicides]]
[[Category:Infectious disease deaths in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Matricides]]
[[Category:People convicted of murder by New Jersey]]
[[Category:People from Bay City, Michigan]]
[[Category:People from Westfield, New Jersey]]
[[Category:People with personality disorders]]
[[Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by New Jersey]]
[[Category:Prisoners who died in New Jersey detention]]
[[Category:United States Army soldiers]]
[[Category:University of Michigan alumni]]
[[Category:People extradited within the United States]]

John List (Massenmörder)

2013-04-17T19:51:04Z

Doc9871: /* Arrest and trial */ eep

{{About|the mass murderer|the economist of the University of Chicago|John A. List}}
{{Infobox murderer
| name = John List
| image = Small ListMug.jpg
| image_size =
| caption = Mugshot of John List, c.2005
| birthname = John Emil List
| occupation = Accountant
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1925|09|17}}
| birth_place = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| death_date = {{Death date and age|2008|03|21|1925|09|17}}
| death_place = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
| cause = Pneumonia
| penalty = Five consecutive life terms
| parents = John Frederick List, father, 1859–1944 and Alma List, mother, 1887–1971
| spouse = Helen List 1926–1971, (m. 1952–1971, her death) Delores Clark (Miller), (m. 1985-?)
| date = November 9, 1971
| time =
| targets = Mother, wife, and children
| locations = [[Westfield, New Jersey]]
| fatalities = 5; bullet wounds to head and body
| weapons =<li> [[9mm|9 mm]] [[Steyr 1912|Steyr handgun]],<li> [[.22 LR|.22 caliber]] [[revolver]]
}}
'''John Emil List''' (September 17, 1925 – March 21, 2008) was an [[Americans|American]] fugitive convicted of [[murder]]. On November 9, 1971, he killed his wife, mother, and three children in their home in [[Westfield, New Jersey]], and then disappeared. He had planned the murders so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years, List, after assuming a false identity and remarrying, was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989, after the story of his murders was broadcast on ''[[America's Most Wanted]]''. List was found guilty of the murders and sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. He died of pneumonia while in prison custody in 2008.

==Personal background==
Born in [[Bay City, Michigan|Bay City]], [[Michigan]], List was the only child of [[German American]] parents, John Frederick List (1859–1944) and Alma Maria Barbara Florence List (1887–1971). He was a devout [[Lutheran]] and taught [[Sunday school]]. He served in the [[U.S. Army]] during [[World War II]] and later was given an [[ROTC]] commission as a [[Second Lieutenant]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Ryzuk|first=Mary S.|year=1990|title=Thou Shalt Not Kill|publisher=Popular Library|isbn=0-445-21043-5|page=101}}</ref> He attended the [[University of Michigan]] in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]], where he earned a [[bachelor's degree]] in [[business administration]] and a [[master's degree]] in [[accounting]]. List met his wife, Helen, in 1951, and they married shortly after.

==Murders==
On November 9, 1971 List methodically killed his entire family: his wife, Helen, 45; his mother, Alma, 84; and his children — Patricia, 16, John, Jr., 15, and Frederick, 13. The murder weapons were his own [[9mm]] [[Steyr 1912]] [[Semi-automatic pistol|automatic handgun]]<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 117.</ref> and his father's [[.22 caliber]] [[revolver]].<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 285.</ref> He first shot his wife in the back of the head and his mother above the left eye while his children were at school. When Patricia and Frederick came home they were each shot in the back of the head. After making himself lunch, List drove to John, Jr.'s school to watch him play in a [[soccer]] game. After the game he drove his elder son home and shot him once in the back of the head, then at least ten more times when the body began twitching.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List placed the bodies of his wife and children on sleeping bags in the ballroom of their 19-room [[Victorian architecture|Victorian]] home. He left his mother's body in her apartment in the attic. After cleaning up the crime scene he departed, leaving on all of the house lights and the radio. In a letter to his pastor, found on his desk in his study, he wrote, "Mother is in the attic. She was too heavy to move." He added that he had prayed over the bodies before leaving.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The murders were not discovered for a month, due in part to the Lists' reclusiveness, and to notes sent by List to the children's schools and part-time jobs stating that the family would be in [[North Carolina]] for several weeks. He also stopped the family's milk, mail and newspaper deliveries. After emptying his own and his mother's bank accounts, he fled in the family car, a [[Chevrolet Impala]].<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The case quickly became the second most infamous crime in New Jersey history, surpassed only by the kidnapping and murder of the [[Lindbergh Baby]]. A nationwide manhunt was launched. His Impala was found parked at [[Kennedy Airport]], but there was no evidence that he boarded a flight.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> The police checked out hundreds of leads without results.<ref>''Notorious'', television series, Episode: "To Save Their Souls", 2005</ref> The victims were buried at [[Fairview Cemetery (Westfield, New Jersey)|Fairview Cemetery]] in Westfield.

John List moved to Colorado and assumed the identity Robert "Bob" Clark and in 1985 married divorcee Delores Miller.

In 1989 New Jersey law enforcement approached the producers of the television show ''[[America's Most Wanted]]'' about doing a show on List; at the time, it was the oldest unsolved case the show had ever featured. The broadcast included an [[Age progression|age-progressed]] clay [[Bust (sculpture)|bust]], which, as it turned out, looked remarkably similar to List, even though he had been missing for 18 years.

The bust was sculpted by [[forensic]] artist [[Frank Bender]], who had successfully captured many aging fugitives and identified decomposed bodies via his art. To imagine what an older List would look like, he consulted [[forensic psychology|forensic psychologist]] [[Richard Walter]], who created a [[offender profiling|psychological profile]]. He looked at photographs of List's parents and predicted his appearance, giving List a receding hairline and sagging jowls. Bender and Richard Walter were particularly praised for one final touch: they accurately predicted the type of [[eyeglasses]] frames that List would be wearing, by taking into account his personality type and the kind of eyeglasses he had favored in the past.

[[John Walsh]], the host of ''America's Most Wanted'', called Bender's work the most brilliant example of detective work that he had ever seen. Walsh kept Bender’s bust of List in a place of honor in his office for many years, and in 2008 donated it to a forensic science exhibit at the privately owned [[National Museum of Crime & Punishment]].

==Arrest and trial==
List was arrested on June 1, 1989, nearly 18 years after killing his family.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fbi.gov/richmond/about-us/history-1/history |title=FBI Richmond Division History |publisher=Federal Bureau of Investigation |accessdate=19 December 2011}}</ref> At the time he was employed by a [[Richmond, Virginia]] accounting firm where he worked while living under the fictitious name Robert "Bob" Peter Clark. List had chosen the name because it had belonged to one of his college classmates, who later stated that he had never known List.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6}}</ref> List had lived in [[Denver, Colorado]] and [[Midlothian, Virginia]] before his arrest, having remarried and resumed working as an accountant. Upon viewing the broadcast, a friend of the Clarks recognized the subject of the profile as a neighbor and contacted the authorities. FBI agents arrested List at the office where he worked after visiting his home and speaking with his current wife, Delores.<ref>Ryzuk, pp.396-399</ref>

List was [[extradition|extradited]] to New Jersey as Robert Clark and sent to the [[Union County, New Jersey]] jail to await trial. He continued to stand by his alias despite overwhelming evidence - including his [[fingerprint]]s at the crime scene - of both his true identity and his guilt.

List made his first admission of his identity to a fellow inmate while he was still in the Union County Jail. During a casual discussion List made reference to his military service during World War II, and the inmate said to List (using his alias), "Bob, that might be just what you need to prove that you're not John List. They took your fingerprints when you joined the military, didn't they?"{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List hesitated for a moment, then lowered his head and mumbled, "Yes, they did." He then excused himself, saying that he was tired and needed a nap. The next day, List said, "Richard, my name is John List, not Bob Clark." List thereafter corrected any inmate or staff member who called him "Bob" or "Mr. Clark."{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List would not admit his true identity to the court until February 16, 1990, eight months and fifteen days after his capture.<ref>Ryzuk, p.452</ref>

On April 12, 1990, List was convicted in a New Jersey court of five counts of [[first-degree murder]]. On May 1, he was sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. List would express remorse for his crimes, ststing, "I wish I had never done what I did. I've regretted my action and prayed for forgiveness ever since.<ref>List and Goodrich (2006): ''Collateral Damage: The John List Story'', p. 80.</ref> In a 2002 interview with [[Connie Chung]], when asked why he had not taken his own life, he said he believed that [[suicide]] would have barred him from [[Heaven]], where he hoped to be reunited with his family.<ref name="NYT_19830325"/>

==Motive==
List had lost his job as an accountant and was suffering from financial problems before the murders. He would sit at the local bus station every day, hiding his unemployment from his family, and making believe he was traveling to his accountant job. He owed $11,000 on his mortgage and was skimming from his mother's bank accounts.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> He was also dealing with his wife's [[dementia]], brought on by advanced [[syphilis]] contracted from her first husband and hidden from List for 18 years.<ref>[http://www.goleader.com/list/ The List Murders Stun Westfield In 1971] By Kathy Halverson, February 17, 2001 For The Westfield Leader and The Times. Accessed June 28, 2007</ref><ref name="NYT19900407">{{Cite news|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DE1630F934A35757C0A966958260 |title=Slaying Suspect Saw 2 Choices, Doctor Testifies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=April 7, 1990 | first=Joseph F. | last=Sullivan | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List was described by a psychiatrist as having [[obsessive-compulsive personality disorder]]. A psychiatrist who interviewed List testified that he saw only two solutions to his family's financial and health problems – either go on [[Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Welfare|welfare]] or kill his family and send their souls to heaven.<ref name="NYT19900407"/> He was especially concerned about the soul of his daughter, Patty, who showed little interest in church. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}}
She was also active in the theater department, smoked marijuana, and was interested in [[Wicca]]. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} He was afraid that welfare would expose them to ridicule, show that List did not love them, and violate his own [[authoritarian]] father's teachings to always care for and protect the family.<ref name="NYT19900407"/>

==Death==
List died from complications of [[pneumonia]] at age 82 on March 21, 2008, while in prison custody at a [[Trenton, New Jersey]] hospital.<ref name="NYT_19830325">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/nyregion/25list1.html?em&ex=1206590400&en=54ef92d43724f8e2&ei=5087%0A |title=John E. List, 82, Killer of 5 Family Members, Dies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=March 25, 2008 | first=David | last=Stout | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref> In announcing his death the [[Newark, New Jersey]], ''[[Star-Ledger]]'' referred to him as the "boogeyman of Westfield".<ref>[http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2008/03/the_bogeyman_of_westfield_a_gh.html "The bogeyman of Westfield, a ghost story that won't end" by Mark Di Ionno, The Star Ledger]</ref> His body was not immediately claimed,<ref name="BayCity">{{Cite news|url=http://www.mybaycity.com/scripts/Article_View.cfm?ArticleID=2465&NewspaperID=0 |title=Killer John List's Body Lies Unclaimed in New Jersey Morgue |publisher=mybaycity.com |date=March 27, 2008}}</ref> though he was later buried next to his mother in [[Frankenmuth, Michigan]].<ref>[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=25511539 John Emil List (1925-2008) - Find a Grave]</ref>

==Home arson==
The List home was destroyed by [[arson]] ten months after the murders. Destroyed along with the home was the ballroom's [[stained glass]] skylight, rumored to be a signed [[Louis Comfort Tiffany|Tiffany]] original worth over $100,000.<ref name="NYT20081228"/>

==In popular culture==
*The 1987 film ''[[The Stepfather (1987 film)|The Stepfather]]'' and the [[The Stepfather (2009 film)|2009 remake]] were loosely based on the List case.
*[[Robert Blake (actor)|Robert Blake]] portrayed List in the 1993 film ''[[Judgment Day: The John List Story]]''.
*The Season Six episode of ''[[Law & Order]]'', "Savior" was based on the List story. This episode starred [[Ellen Pompeo]] of ''[[Grey's Anatomy]]'' fame.
*List's crimes and disappearance were an inspiration for the character of [[Keyser Söze]] in the 1995 film ''[[The Usual Suspects]]''.<ref name="DVDcom">''The Usual Suspects'' DVD commentary featuring [[Bryan Singer]] and [[Christopher McQuarrie]], [2000]. Retrieved 27 September 2002</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Books==
*''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'' Timothy B. Benford and James P. Johnson, iUniverse, 332 pp., ISBN 0-595-00720-1
*''Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders'' Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6
*''Collateral Damage: The John List Story '' John E. List and Austin Goodrich, iUniverse, Inc., 130pp., ISBN 0-595-39536-8
*''Thou Shalt Not Kill'' Mary S. Ryzuk, Warner Books, 509pp., ISBN 0-445-21043-5

==External links==
{{Portal|New Jersey|Biography|Crime}}
*[http://www.goleader.com/list/ Newspaper articles on John List]
*[http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/1.html John List, famous murder - The Crime Library]
*{{Find a Grave|25511539|name=John Emil List}}
*{{IMDb title|0401220|American Justice Episode #169: To Save Their Souls}}
{{Authority control|VIAF=23760246}}

{{Persondata 
| NAME = List, John
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =
| DATE OF BIRTH = September 17, 1925
| PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| DATE OF DEATH = March 21, 2008
| PLACE OF DEATH = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:List, John}}
[[Category:1925 births]]
[[Category:2008 deaths]]
[[Category:20th-century criminals]]
[[Category:America's Most Wanted]]
[[Category:American Lutherans]]
[[Category:American mass murderers]]
[[Category:American military personnel of World War II]]
[[Category:American murderers of children]]
[[Category:American people convicted of murder]]
[[Category:American people of German descent]]
[[Category:American people who died in prison custody]]
[[Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment]]
[[Category:Criminals from Michigan]]
[[Category:Deaths from pneumonia]]
[[Category:Familicides]]
[[Category:Filicides]]
[[Category:Infectious disease deaths in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Matricides]]
[[Category:People convicted of murder by New Jersey]]
[[Category:People from Bay City, Michigan]]
[[Category:People from Westfield, New Jersey]]
[[Category:People with personality disorders]]
[[Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by New Jersey]]
[[Category:Prisoners who died in New Jersey detention]]
[[Category:United States Army soldiers]]
[[Category:University of Michigan alumni]]
[[Category:People extradited within the United States]]

John List (Massenmörder)

2013-04-17T19:50:34Z

Doc9871: /* Arrest and trial */ Temp fix.

{{About|the mass murderer|the economist of the University of Chicago|John A. List}}
{{Infobox murderer
| name = John List
| image = Small ListMug.jpg
| image_size =
| caption = Mugshot of John List, c.2005
| birthname = John Emil List
| occupation = Accountant
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1925|09|17}}
| birth_place = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| death_date = {{Death date and age|2008|03|21|1925|09|17}}
| death_place = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
| cause = Pneumonia
| penalty = Five consecutive life terms
| parents = John Frederick List, father, 1859–1944 and Alma List, mother, 1887–1971
| spouse = Helen List 1926–1971, (m. 1952–1971, her death) Delores Clark (Miller), (m. 1985-?)
| date = November 9, 1971
| time =
| targets = Mother, wife, and children
| locations = [[Westfield, New Jersey]]
| fatalities = 5; bullet wounds to head and body
| weapons =<li> [[9mm|9 mm]] [[Steyr 1912|Steyr handgun]],<li> [[.22 LR|.22 caliber]] [[revolver]]
}}
'''John Emil List''' (September 17, 1925 – March 21, 2008) was an [[Americans|American]] fugitive convicted of [[murder]]. On November 9, 1971, he killed his wife, mother, and three children in their home in [[Westfield, New Jersey]], and then disappeared. He had planned the murders so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years, List, after assuming a false identity and remarrying, was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989, after the story of his murders was broadcast on ''[[America's Most Wanted]]''. List was found guilty of the murders and sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. He died of pneumonia while in prison custody in 2008.

==Personal background==
Born in [[Bay City, Michigan|Bay City]], [[Michigan]], List was the only child of [[German American]] parents, John Frederick List (1859–1944) and Alma Maria Barbara Florence List (1887–1971). He was a devout [[Lutheran]] and taught [[Sunday school]]. He served in the [[U.S. Army]] during [[World War II]] and later was given an [[ROTC]] commission as a [[Second Lieutenant]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Ryzuk|first=Mary S.|year=1990|title=Thou Shalt Not Kill|publisher=Popular Library|isbn=0-445-21043-5|page=101}}</ref> He attended the [[University of Michigan]] in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]], where he earned a [[bachelor's degree]] in [[business administration]] and a [[master's degree]] in [[accounting]]. List met his wife, Helen, in 1951, and they married shortly after.

==Murders==
On November 9, 1971 List methodically killed his entire family: his wife, Helen, 45; his mother, Alma, 84; and his children — Patricia, 16, John, Jr., 15, and Frederick, 13. The murder weapons were his own [[9mm]] [[Steyr 1912]] [[Semi-automatic pistol|automatic handgun]]<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 117.</ref> and his father's [[.22 caliber]] [[revolver]].<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 285.</ref> He first shot his wife in the back of the head and his mother above the left eye while his children were at school. When Patricia and Frederick came home they were each shot in the back of the head. After making himself lunch, List drove to John, Jr.'s school to watch him play in a [[soccer]] game. After the game he drove his elder son home and shot him once in the back of the head, then at least ten more times when the body began twitching.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List placed the bodies of his wife and children on sleeping bags in the ballroom of their 19-room [[Victorian architecture|Victorian]] home. He left his mother's body in her apartment in the attic. After cleaning up the crime scene he departed, leaving on all of the house lights and the radio. In a letter to his pastor, found on his desk in his study, he wrote, "Mother is in the attic. She was too heavy to move." He added that he had prayed over the bodies before leaving.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The murders were not discovered for a month, due in part to the Lists' reclusiveness, and to notes sent by List to the children's schools and part-time jobs stating that the family would be in [[North Carolina]] for several weeks. He also stopped the family's milk, mail and newspaper deliveries. After emptying his own and his mother's bank accounts, he fled in the family car, a [[Chevrolet Impala]].<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The case quickly became the second most infamous crime in New Jersey history, surpassed only by the kidnapping and murder of the [[Lindbergh Baby]]. A nationwide manhunt was launched. His Impala was found parked at [[Kennedy Airport]], but there was no evidence that he boarded a flight.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> The police checked out hundreds of leads without results.<ref>''Notorious'', television series, Episode: "To Save Their Souls", 2005</ref> The victims were buried at [[Fairview Cemetery (Westfield, New Jersey)|Fairview Cemetery]] in Westfield.

John List moved to Colorado and assumed the identity Robert "Bob" Clark and in 1985 married divorcee Delores Miller.

In 1989 New Jersey law enforcement approached the producers of the television show ''[[America's Most Wanted]]'' about doing a show on List; at the time, it was the oldest unsolved case the show had ever featured. The broadcast included an [[Age progression|age-progressed]] clay [[Bust (sculpture)|bust]], which, as it turned out, looked remarkably similar to List, even though he had been missing for 18 years.

The bust was sculpted by [[forensic]] artist [[Frank Bender]], who had successfully captured many aging fugitives and identified decomposed bodies via his art. To imagine what an older List would look like, he consulted [[forensic psychology|forensic psychologist]] [[Richard Walter]], who created a [[offender profiling|psychological profile]]. He looked at photographs of List's parents and predicted his appearance, giving List a receding hairline and sagging jowls. Bender and Richard Walter were particularly praised for one final touch: they accurately predicted the type of [[eyeglasses]] frames that List would be wearing, by taking into account his personality type and the kind of eyeglasses he had favored in the past.

[[John Walsh]], the host of ''America's Most Wanted'', called Bender's work the most brilliant example of detective work that he had ever seen. Walsh kept Bender’s bust of List in a place of honor in his office for many years, and in 2008 donated it to a forensic science exhibit at the privately owned [[National Museum of Crime & Punishment]].

==Arrest and trial==
List was arrested on June 1, 1989, nearly 18 years after killing his family.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fbi.gov/richmond/about-us/history-1/history |title=FBI Richmond Division History |publisher=Federal Bureau of Investigation |accessdate=19 December 2011}}</ref> At the time he was employed by a [[Richmond, Virginia]] accounting firm where he worked while living under the fictitious name Robert "Bob" Peter Clark. List had chosen the name because it had belonged to one of his college classmates, who later stated that he had never known List.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6}}</ref> List had lived in [[Denver, Colorado]] and [[Midlothian, Virginia]] before his arrest, having remarried and resumed working as an accountant. Upon viewing the broadcast, a friend of the Clarks recognized the subject of the profile as a neighbor and contacted the authorities. FBI agents arrested List at the office where he worked after visiting his home and speaking with his current wife, Delores.<ref>Ryzuk, pp.396-399</ref>

List was [[extradition|extradited]] to New Jersey as Robert Clark and sent to the [[Union County, New Jersey]] jail to await trial. He continued to stand by his alias despite overwhelming evidence - including his [[fingerprint]]s at the crime scene - of both his true identity and his guilt.

List made his first admission of his identity to a fellow inmate while he was still in the Union County Jail. During a casual discussion List made reference to his military service during World War II, and the inmate said to List (using his alias), "Bob, that might be just what you need to prove that you're not John List. They took your fingerprints when you joined the military, didn't they?"{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List hesitated for a moment, then lowered his head and mumbled, "Yes, they did." He then excused himself, saying that he was tired and needed a nap. The next day, List said, "Richard, my name is John List, not Bob Clark." List thereafter corrected any inmate or staff member who called him "Bob" or "Mr. Clark."{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List would not admit his true identity to the court until February 16, 1990, eight months and fifteen days after his capture.<ref>Ryzuk, p.452</ref>

On April 12, 1990, List was convicted in a New Jersey court of five counts of [[first-degree murder]]. On May 1, he was sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. List would express remorse for his crimes, ststing, "I wish I had never done what I did. I've regretted my action and prayed for forgiveness ever since<ref>List and Goodrich (2006): ''Collateral Damage: The John List Story'', p. 80.</ref> In a 2002 interview with [[Connie Chung]], when asked why he had not taken his own life, he said he believed that [[suicide]] would have barred him from [[Heaven]], where he hoped to be reunited with his family.<ref name="NYT_19830325"/>

==Motive==
List had lost his job as an accountant and was suffering from financial problems before the murders. He would sit at the local bus station every day, hiding his unemployment from his family, and making believe he was traveling to his accountant job. He owed $11,000 on his mortgage and was skimming from his mother's bank accounts.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> He was also dealing with his wife's [[dementia]], brought on by advanced [[syphilis]] contracted from her first husband and hidden from List for 18 years.<ref>[http://www.goleader.com/list/ The List Murders Stun Westfield In 1971] By Kathy Halverson, February 17, 2001 For The Westfield Leader and The Times. Accessed June 28, 2007</ref><ref name="NYT19900407">{{Cite news|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DE1630F934A35757C0A966958260 |title=Slaying Suspect Saw 2 Choices, Doctor Testifies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=April 7, 1990 | first=Joseph F. | last=Sullivan | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List was described by a psychiatrist as having [[obsessive-compulsive personality disorder]]. A psychiatrist who interviewed List testified that he saw only two solutions to his family's financial and health problems – either go on [[Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Welfare|welfare]] or kill his family and send their souls to heaven.<ref name="NYT19900407"/> He was especially concerned about the soul of his daughter, Patty, who showed little interest in church. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}}
She was also active in the theater department, smoked marijuana, and was interested in [[Wicca]]. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} He was afraid that welfare would expose them to ridicule, show that List did not love them, and violate his own [[authoritarian]] father's teachings to always care for and protect the family.<ref name="NYT19900407"/>

==Death==
List died from complications of [[pneumonia]] at age 82 on March 21, 2008, while in prison custody at a [[Trenton, New Jersey]] hospital.<ref name="NYT_19830325">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/nyregion/25list1.html?em&ex=1206590400&en=54ef92d43724f8e2&ei=5087%0A |title=John E. List, 82, Killer of 5 Family Members, Dies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=March 25, 2008 | first=David | last=Stout | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref> In announcing his death the [[Newark, New Jersey]], ''[[Star-Ledger]]'' referred to him as the "boogeyman of Westfield".<ref>[http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2008/03/the_bogeyman_of_westfield_a_gh.html "The bogeyman of Westfield, a ghost story that won't end" by Mark Di Ionno, The Star Ledger]</ref> His body was not immediately claimed,<ref name="BayCity">{{Cite news|url=http://www.mybaycity.com/scripts/Article_View.cfm?ArticleID=2465&NewspaperID=0 |title=Killer John List's Body Lies Unclaimed in New Jersey Morgue |publisher=mybaycity.com |date=March 27, 2008}}</ref> though he was later buried next to his mother in [[Frankenmuth, Michigan]].<ref>[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=25511539 John Emil List (1925-2008) - Find a Grave]</ref>

==Home arson==
The List home was destroyed by [[arson]] ten months after the murders. Destroyed along with the home was the ballroom's [[stained glass]] skylight, rumored to be a signed [[Louis Comfort Tiffany|Tiffany]] original worth over $100,000.<ref name="NYT20081228"/>

==In popular culture==
*The 1987 film ''[[The Stepfather (1987 film)|The Stepfather]]'' and the [[The Stepfather (2009 film)|2009 remake]] were loosely based on the List case.
*[[Robert Blake (actor)|Robert Blake]] portrayed List in the 1993 film ''[[Judgment Day: The John List Story]]''.
*The Season Six episode of ''[[Law & Order]]'', "Savior" was based on the List story. This episode starred [[Ellen Pompeo]] of ''[[Grey's Anatomy]]'' fame.
*List's crimes and disappearance were an inspiration for the character of [[Keyser Söze]] in the 1995 film ''[[The Usual Suspects]]''.<ref name="DVDcom">''The Usual Suspects'' DVD commentary featuring [[Bryan Singer]] and [[Christopher McQuarrie]], [2000]. Retrieved 27 September 2002</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Books==
*''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'' Timothy B. Benford and James P. Johnson, iUniverse, 332 pp., ISBN 0-595-00720-1
*''Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders'' Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6
*''Collateral Damage: The John List Story '' John E. List and Austin Goodrich, iUniverse, Inc., 130pp., ISBN 0-595-39536-8
*''Thou Shalt Not Kill'' Mary S. Ryzuk, Warner Books, 509pp., ISBN 0-445-21043-5

==External links==
{{Portal|New Jersey|Biography|Crime}}
*[http://www.goleader.com/list/ Newspaper articles on John List]
*[http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/1.html John List, famous murder - The Crime Library]
*{{Find a Grave|25511539|name=John Emil List}}
*{{IMDb title|0401220|American Justice Episode #169: To Save Their Souls}}
{{Authority control|VIAF=23760246}}

{{Persondata 
| NAME = List, John
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =
| DATE OF BIRTH = September 17, 1925
| PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| DATE OF DEATH = March 21, 2008
| PLACE OF DEATH = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:List, John}}
[[Category:1925 births]]
[[Category:2008 deaths]]
[[Category:20th-century criminals]]
[[Category:America's Most Wanted]]
[[Category:American Lutherans]]
[[Category:American mass murderers]]
[[Category:American military personnel of World War II]]
[[Category:American murderers of children]]
[[Category:American people convicted of murder]]
[[Category:American people of German descent]]
[[Category:American people who died in prison custody]]
[[Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment]]
[[Category:Criminals from Michigan]]
[[Category:Deaths from pneumonia]]
[[Category:Familicides]]
[[Category:Filicides]]
[[Category:Infectious disease deaths in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Matricides]]
[[Category:People convicted of murder by New Jersey]]
[[Category:People from Bay City, Michigan]]
[[Category:People from Westfield, New Jersey]]
[[Category:People with personality disorders]]
[[Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by New Jersey]]
[[Category:Prisoners who died in New Jersey detention]]
[[Category:United States Army soldiers]]
[[Category:University of Michigan alumni]]
[[Category:People extradited within the United States]]

John List (Massenmörder)

2013-04-17T19:44:46Z

Doc9871: /* Books */ Fix

{{About|the mass murderer|the economist of the University of Chicago|John A. List}}
{{Infobox murderer
| name = John List
| image = Small ListMug.jpg
| image_size =
| caption = Mugshot of John List, c.2005
| birthname = John Emil List
| occupation = Accountant
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1925|09|17}}
| birth_place = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| death_date = {{Death date and age|2008|03|21|1925|09|17}}
| death_place = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
| cause = Pneumonia
| penalty = Five consecutive life terms
| parents = John Frederick List, father, 1859–1944 and Alma List, mother, 1887–1971
| spouse = Helen List 1926–1971, (m. 1952–1971, her death) Delores Clark (Miller), (m. 1985-?)
| date = November 9, 1971
| time =
| targets = Mother, wife, and children
| locations = [[Westfield, New Jersey]]
| fatalities = 5; bullet wounds to head and body
| weapons =<li> [[9mm|9 mm]] [[Steyr 1912|Steyr handgun]],<li> [[.22 LR|.22 caliber]] [[revolver]]
}}
'''John Emil List''' (September 17, 1925 – March 21, 2008) was an [[Americans|American]] fugitive convicted of [[murder]]. On November 9, 1971, he killed his wife, mother, and three children in their home in [[Westfield, New Jersey]], and then disappeared. He had planned the murders so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years, List, after assuming a false identity and remarrying, was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989, after the story of his murders was broadcast on ''[[America's Most Wanted]]''. List was found guilty of the murders and sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. He died of pneumonia while in prison custody in 2008.

==Personal background==
Born in [[Bay City, Michigan|Bay City]], [[Michigan]], List was the only child of [[German American]] parents, John Frederick List (1859–1944) and Alma Maria Barbara Florence List (1887–1971). He was a devout [[Lutheran]] and taught [[Sunday school]]. He served in the [[U.S. Army]] during [[World War II]] and later was given an [[ROTC]] commission as a [[Second Lieutenant]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Ryzuk|first=Mary S.|year=1990|title=Thou Shalt Not Kill|publisher=Popular Library|isbn=0-445-21043-5|page=101}}</ref> He attended the [[University of Michigan]] in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]], where he earned a [[bachelor's degree]] in [[business administration]] and a [[master's degree]] in [[accounting]]. List met his wife, Helen, in 1951, and they married shortly after.

==Murders==
On November 9, 1971 List methodically killed his entire family: his wife, Helen, 45; his mother, Alma, 84; and his children — Patricia, 16, John, Jr., 15, and Frederick, 13. The murder weapons were his own [[9mm]] [[Steyr 1912]] [[Semi-automatic pistol|automatic handgun]]<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 117.</ref> and his father's [[.22 caliber]] [[revolver]].<ref>Benford TB and Johnson JP (2000): ''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'', p. 285.</ref> He first shot his wife in the back of the head and his mother above the left eye while his children were at school. When Patricia and Frederick came home they were each shot in the back of the head. After making himself lunch, List drove to John, Jr.'s school to watch him play in a [[soccer]] game. After the game he drove his elder son home and shot him once in the back of the head, then at least ten more times when the body began twitching.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List placed the bodies of his wife and children on sleeping bags in the ballroom of their 19-room [[Victorian architecture|Victorian]] home. He left his mother's body in her apartment in the attic. After cleaning up the crime scene he departed, leaving on all of the house lights and the radio. In a letter to his pastor, found on his desk in his study, he wrote, "Mother is in the attic. She was too heavy to move." He added that he had prayed over the bodies before leaving.<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The murders were not discovered for a month, due in part to the Lists' reclusiveness, and to notes sent by List to the children's schools and part-time jobs stating that the family would be in [[North Carolina]] for several weeks. He also stopped the family's milk, mail and newspaper deliveries. After emptying his own and his mother's bank accounts, he fled in the family car, a [[Chevrolet Impala]].<ref name="NYT20081228">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28List-t.html |title=Wanted: A Killer Disappears Into Another Life |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=December 28, 2008 | first=Elizabeth | last=McCracken | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

The case quickly became the second most infamous crime in New Jersey history, surpassed only by the kidnapping and murder of the [[Lindbergh Baby]]. A nationwide manhunt was launched. His Impala was found parked at [[Kennedy Airport]], but there was no evidence that he boarded a flight.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> The police checked out hundreds of leads without results.<ref>''Notorious'', television series, Episode: "To Save Their Souls", 2005</ref> The victims were buried at [[Fairview Cemetery (Westfield, New Jersey)|Fairview Cemetery]] in Westfield.

John List moved to Colorado and assumed the identity Robert "Bob" Clark and in 1985 married divorcee Delores Miller.

In 1989 New Jersey law enforcement approached the producers of the television show ''[[America's Most Wanted]]'' about doing a show on List; at the time, it was the oldest unsolved case the show had ever featured. The broadcast included an [[Age progression|age-progressed]] clay [[Bust (sculpture)|bust]], which, as it turned out, looked remarkably similar to List, even though he had been missing for 18 years.

The bust was sculpted by [[forensic]] artist [[Frank Bender]], who had successfully captured many aging fugitives and identified decomposed bodies via his art. To imagine what an older List would look like, he consulted [[forensic psychology|forensic psychologist]] [[Richard Walter]], who created a [[offender profiling|psychological profile]]. He looked at photographs of List's parents and predicted his appearance, giving List a receding hairline and sagging jowls. Bender and Richard Walter were particularly praised for one final touch: they accurately predicted the type of [[eyeglasses]] frames that List would be wearing, by taking into account his personality type and the kind of eyeglasses he had favored in the past.

[[John Walsh]], the host of ''America's Most Wanted'', called Bender's work the most brilliant example of detective work that he had ever seen. Walsh kept Bender’s bust of List in a place of honor in his office for many years, and in 2008 donated it to a forensic science exhibit at the privately owned [[National Museum of Crime & Punishment]].

==Arrest and trial==
List was arrested on June 1, 1989, nearly 18 years after killing his family.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fbi.gov/richmond/about-us/history-1/history |title=FBI Richmond Division History |publisher=Federal Bureau of Investigation |accessdate=19 December 2011}}</ref> At the time he was employed by a [[Richmond, Virginia]] accounting firm where he worked while living under the fictitious name Robert "Bob" Peter Clark. List had chosen the name because it had belonged to one of his college classmates, who later stated that he had never known List.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6}}</ref> List had lived in [[Denver, Colorado]] and [[Midlothian, Virginia]] before his arrest, having remarried and resumed working as an accountant. Upon viewing the broadcast, a friend of the Clarks recognized the subject of the profile as a neighbor and contacted the authorities. FBI agents arrested List at the office where he worked after visiting his home and speaking with his current wife, Delores.<ref>Ryzuk, pp.396-399</ref>

List was [[extradition|extradited]] to New Jersey as Robert Clark and sent to the [[Union County, New Jersey]] jail to await trial. He continued to stand by his alias despite overwhelming evidence - including his [[fingerprint]]s at the crime scene - of both his true identity and his guilt.

List made his first admission of his identity to a fellow inmate while he was still in the Union County Jail. During a casual discussion List made reference to his military service during World War II, and the inmate said to List (using his alias), "Bob, that might be just what you need to prove that you're not John List. They took your fingerprints when you joined the military, didn't they?"{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List hesitated for a moment, then lowered his head and mumbled, "Yes, they did." He then excused himself, saying that he was tired and needed a nap. The next day, List said, "Richard, my name is John List, not Bob Clark." List thereafter corrected any inmate or staff member who called him "Bob" or "Mr. Clark."{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}

List would not admit his true identity to the court until February 16, 1990, eight months and fifteen days after his capture.<ref>Ryzuk, p.452</ref>

On April 12, 1990, List was convicted in a New Jersey court of five counts of [[first-degree murder]]. On May 1, he was sentenced to five consecutive terms of [[life imprisonment]]. List never expressed any remorse for his crimes. In a 2002 interview with [[Connie Chung]], when asked why he had not taken his own life, he said he believed that [[suicide]] would have barred him from [[Heaven]], where he hoped to be reunited with his family.<ref name="NYT_19830325"/>

==Motive==
List had lost his job as an accountant and was suffering from financial problems before the murders. He would sit at the local bus station every day, hiding his unemployment from his family, and making believe he was traveling to his accountant job. He owed $11,000 on his mortgage and was skimming from his mother's bank accounts.<ref name="NYT20081228"/> He was also dealing with his wife's [[dementia]], brought on by advanced [[syphilis]] contracted from her first husband and hidden from List for 18 years.<ref>[http://www.goleader.com/list/ The List Murders Stun Westfield In 1971] By Kathy Halverson, February 17, 2001 For The Westfield Leader and The Times. Accessed June 28, 2007</ref><ref name="NYT19900407">{{Cite news|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DE1630F934A35757C0A966958260 |title=Slaying Suspect Saw 2 Choices, Doctor Testifies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=April 7, 1990 | first=Joseph F. | last=Sullivan | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref>

List was described by a psychiatrist as having [[obsessive-compulsive personality disorder]]. A psychiatrist who interviewed List testified that he saw only two solutions to his family's financial and health problems – either go on [[Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Welfare|welfare]] or kill his family and send their souls to heaven.<ref name="NYT19900407"/> He was especially concerned about the soul of his daughter, Patty, who showed little interest in church. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}}
She was also active in the theater department, smoked marijuana, and was interested in [[Wicca]]. {{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} He was afraid that welfare would expose them to ridicule, show that List did not love them, and violate his own [[authoritarian]] father's teachings to always care for and protect the family.<ref name="NYT19900407"/>

==Death==
List died from complications of [[pneumonia]] at age 82 on March 21, 2008, while in prison custody at a [[Trenton, New Jersey]] hospital.<ref name="NYT_19830325">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/nyregion/25list1.html?em&ex=1206590400&en=54ef92d43724f8e2&ei=5087%0A |title=John E. List, 82, Killer of 5 Family Members, Dies |publisher=''[[The New York Times]]'' |date=March 25, 2008 | first=David | last=Stout | accessdate=May 6, 2010}}</ref> In announcing his death the [[Newark, New Jersey]], ''[[Star-Ledger]]'' referred to him as the "boogeyman of Westfield".<ref>[http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2008/03/the_bogeyman_of_westfield_a_gh.html "The bogeyman of Westfield, a ghost story that won't end" by Mark Di Ionno, The Star Ledger]</ref> His body was not immediately claimed,<ref name="BayCity">{{Cite news|url=http://www.mybaycity.com/scripts/Article_View.cfm?ArticleID=2465&NewspaperID=0 |title=Killer John List's Body Lies Unclaimed in New Jersey Morgue |publisher=mybaycity.com |date=March 27, 2008}}</ref> though he was later buried next to his mother in [[Frankenmuth, Michigan]].<ref>[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=25511539 John Emil List (1925-2008) - Find a Grave]</ref>

==Home arson==
The List home was destroyed by [[arson]] ten months after the murders. Destroyed along with the home was the ballroom's [[stained glass]] skylight, rumored to be a signed [[Louis Comfort Tiffany|Tiffany]] original worth over $100,000.<ref name="NYT20081228"/>

==In popular culture==
*The 1987 film ''[[The Stepfather (1987 film)|The Stepfather]]'' and the [[The Stepfather (2009 film)|2009 remake]] were loosely based on the List case.
*[[Robert Blake (actor)|Robert Blake]] portrayed List in the 1993 film ''[[Judgment Day: The John List Story]]''.
*The Season Six episode of ''[[Law & Order]]'', "Savior" was based on the List story. This episode starred [[Ellen Pompeo]] of ''[[Grey's Anatomy]]'' fame.
*List's crimes and disappearance were an inspiration for the character of [[Keyser Söze]] in the 1995 film ''[[The Usual Suspects]]''.<ref name="DVDcom">''The Usual Suspects'' DVD commentary featuring [[Bryan Singer]] and [[Christopher McQuarrie]], [2000]. Retrieved 27 September 2002</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Books==
*''Righteous Carnage: The List Murders'' Timothy B. Benford and James P. Johnson, iUniverse, 332 pp., ISBN 0-595-00720-1
*''Death Sentence: The Inside Story of the John List Murders'' Joe Sharkey, Signet, 305 pp., ISBN 0-451-16947-6
*''Collateral Damage: The John List Story '' John E. List and Austin Goodrich, iUniverse, Inc., 130pp., ISBN 0-595-39536-8
*''Thou Shalt Not Kill'' Mary S. Ryzuk, Warner Books, 509pp., ISBN 0-445-21043-5

==External links==
{{Portal|New Jersey|Biography|Crime}}
*[http://www.goleader.com/list/ Newspaper articles on John List]
*[http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/1.html John List, famous murder - The Crime Library]
*{{Find a Grave|25511539|name=John Emil List}}
*{{IMDb title|0401220|American Justice Episode #169: To Save Their Souls}}
{{Authority control|VIAF=23760246}}

{{Persondata 
| NAME = List, John
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =
| DATE OF BIRTH = September 17, 1925
| PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Bay City, Michigan]]
| DATE OF DEATH = March 21, 2008
| PLACE OF DEATH = [[Trenton, New Jersey]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:List, John}}
[[Category:1925 births]]
[[Category:2008 deaths]]
[[Category:20th-century criminals]]
[[Category:America's Most Wanted]]
[[Category:American Lutherans]]
[[Category:American mass murderers]]
[[Category:American military personnel of World War II]]
[[Category:American murderers of children]]
[[Category:American people convicted of murder]]
[[Category:American people of German descent]]
[[Category:American people who died in prison custody]]
[[Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment]]
[[Category:Criminals from Michigan]]
[[Category:Deaths from pneumonia]]
[[Category:Familicides]]
[[Category:Filicides]]
[[Category:Infectious disease deaths in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Matricides]]
[[Category:People convicted of murder by New Jersey]]
[[Category:People from Bay City, Michigan]]
[[Category:People from Westfield, New Jersey]]
[[Category:People with personality disorders]]
[[Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by New Jersey]]
[[Category:Prisoners who died in New Jersey detention]]
[[Category:United States Army soldiers]]
[[Category:University of Michigan alumni]]
[[Category:People extradited within the United States]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2013-01-13T06:30:19Z

Doc9871: /* See also */ f

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nero "Qualis artifex pereo"]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2013-01-13T06:22:12Z

Doc9871: +

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==
[[File:Nero 1.JPG|thumb|right|125px|[[:Nero|"Qualis artifex pereo"]]]]
* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2013-01-13T06:20:21Z

Doc9871: fix

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-14T10:43:46Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ meh

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but rarely stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-14T10:41:11Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ switch

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. They retire in a huff, but never stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-14T10:38:53Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ Add.

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire in a huff, but never stay away for more than a few days. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking]] a diva for any reason (it will always be wrong) invariably provokes their early retirement. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-12T08:44:16Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ -

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: The diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire in a huff, but never stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-12T08:31:50Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ Fix

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire in a huff, but never stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-12T08:26:39Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ better

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to fix it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-12T08:24:26Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ +

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days. Divas are compelled to remind others of how much the wiki would suck even more if they weren't around to help it.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-12T08:15:54Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ linky;

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-12T08:10:48Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ +

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely uncivil to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Hubi, der Pinguin

2012-10-11T06:46:19Z

Doc9871: Reverted edits by 70.68.46.109 (talk) to last version by DumbBOT

{{Infobox film
| name = The Pebble and the Penguin
| image = PEBBLE.JPG
| image_size = 215px
| alt =
| caption = Family Fun Edition DVD cover
| director = [[Don Bluth]] [[Gary Goldman]]
| producer = Don Bluth Gary Goldman Russell Boland
| screenplay = Rachel Koretsky Steven Whitestone
| narrator = [[Shani Wallis]]
| starring = [[Martin Short]] [[James Belushi]] [[Tim Curry]] [[Annie Golden]]
| music = [[Barry Manilow]] Bruce Sussman {{small|(Songs)}} [[Mark Watters]]
| editing = Thomas Moss Fiona Trayler
| distributor = [[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] (USA) [[Warner Bros. Family Entertainment]] (non-USA)
| released = {{Film date|1995|04|11|United States|1996|02|16|Ireland}}
| runtime = 74 minutes
| country = United States Ireland
| language = English
| budget = $28 million
| gross = $3,983,912<ref name="Boxofficemojo">{{cite web|url=http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=pebbleandthepenguin.htm|title=The Pebble and the Penguin (1995)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref>
}}
'''''The Pebble and the Penguin''''' is a 1995 [[Animation|animated]] [[musical film]], based on the true life [[mating]] rituals of the [[Adelie Penguins]] in [[Antarctica]], produced and directed by [[Don Bluth]] and [[Gary Goldman]]. The film was released to theatres on April 11, 1995 by [[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] in the United States and internationally by [[Warner Bros. Family Entertainment]]. The film features the voices of [[Martin Short]], [[Annie Golden]], [[James Belushi]] and [[Tim Curry]]. The film mainly revolves around four characters: Hubie, Marina, Rocko and Drake.

==Plot==
Hubie, a shy, gullible but kindhearted penguin, is in love with the beautiful and kind Marina, but lacks self-confidence leading him to be bullied by the much more impressive, but vain and cruel Drake, who also wants Marina, but clearly for [[lust]]. One night, Hubie and Marina share a song under the moonlight and their feelings are confirmed for each other. Hubie, however, is luckless in finding a perfect pebble to propose to Marina with and wishes on a star to make his dream come true. An emerald falls from the sky next to Hubie. Ecstatic, Hubie rushes to find Marina but is stopped by Drake, who taunts him for a few moments, and demands Hubie to give him the pebble, but when he refuses, Drake throws him into the water. Hubie narrowly escapes a [[leopard seal]] and climbs on to a piece of ice where he is swept away from Antarctica.

Hubie is picked up by humans and caged on their ship, which is transporting penguins to a zoo. The unfortunate penguins on the ship sing of the misery awaiting them. Hubie meets a tough, grumpy, streetwise and somewhat arrogant but good-hearted [[rockhopper penguin]] named Rocko. After seeing Drake warning Marina of the full moon where she must choose a mate or be banished in a dream/vision, Hubie decides to escape. Together, Hubie and Rocko flee, and while lying low on a beach, Hubie finds out that Rocko wants to learn to fly. When Rocko refuses to help Hubie, he convinces Rocko to help him return to Antarctica by making up a lie about a penguin named Waldo who can fly. They have a short fight after Rocko tries to fly off "an authentic, ancient [[Birds|aviarial]] [[airstrip]]" and another after Rocko saved Hubie from a [[killer whale]] and denies it. Meanwhile, in Antarctica, when Marina refuses to marry Drake, he sings threats of killing her. Meanwhile, Hubie and Rocko attempt to depart, only Rocko literally becomes crossed with Hubie when he reveals that he was lying to him. Enraged, Rocko attempts to attack Hubie, but soon starts laughing, praising Hubie's determination to get back to Marina. Back in Antarctica, Marina becomes worried about Hubie and sings a different version of the song Hubie sang for her earlier in the film. Hubie and Rocko later run into the hungry and persistent leopard seal (second time for Hubie). They escape the seal, as Rocko had commented Hubie as "amazing", and both sing to the beginning of their friendship (although Rocko feels hesitant towards it).

When Rocko starts to teach Hubie how to fight, they run into a pod of their worst aquatic enemies: the killer whale. While trying reaching the home ice, Rocko tries to head-off the orcas while Hubie tries to approach the nearest iceberg, having to lose his pebble in the process. Once the killer whales are gone, he calls in vain for Rocko, whose bandana soon washes up right in front of him, suggesting that Rocko died, which devastates Hubie. After the chase, he must face his worst enemy, who has captured his love. Hubie gets knocked out, but gains confidence, and he stands up and fights Drake once again. Hubie has the upper hand on the second go-round, and with a skillful kick, he sends Drake plummeting to his supposed demise. In surprise, Rocko reappears unharmed to Hubie and Marina, but not before Hubie proposes to Marina, who accepts. Before anything else happens, an enraged Drake reappears and yells at them "Say your prayers, you fools!" (thinking that Rocko was on Hubie's side). He throws a large boulder (with Marina on top of it) towards Hubie and Rocko, but it is Drake who meets his demise, by being crushed to death by the entire tower. Rocko saves the couple in danger, and finally gains his ability to fly, much to his excitement. Rocko, having found Hubie's pebble, gives it back to him and it is presented to Marina, who loves it, but then states that she loves Hubie more. In the end, Rocko teaches Marina and Hubie's children to fly.

==Cast==
* [[Martin Short]] as Hubie, a shy, good-hearted [[Adelie penguin]] the main protagonist.
* [[Annie Golden]] as Marina, a female Adelie penguin Hubie's love interest.
* [[James Belushi]] as Rocko, a roguish, streetwise [[Northern Rockhopper Penguin|Rockhopper Penguin]] the deurtagonist
* [[Tim Curry]] as Drake, a hunky, vain, dark-hearted Adelie penguin and the primary antagonist.
* [[Philip L. Clarke]] as the [[King]]
* [[Frank Welker]] as the leopard seal the secondary antagonist.

==Soundtrack==
{{main|The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack)}}
The songs were written by [[Barry Manilow]], who previously wrote the songs for ''[[Thumbelina (1994 film)|Thumbelina]]'', along with Bruce Sussman.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114108/soundtrack |title= Pebble and the Penguin soundtrack |publisher=[[IMDB]] |accessdate=September 12, 2008}}</ref> The film's score was composed by [[Mark Watters]].

# "''Now and Forever''" - Hubie, Marina, Company
# "''Sometimes I Wonder''" - Hubie
# "''The Good Ship Misery''" - Company
# "''Don't Make Me Laugh''" - Drake
# "''Sometimes I Wonder (Reprise)''" - Marina
# "''Looks Like I Got Me a Friend''" - Hubie and Rocko
# "''Now and Forever (Reprise)''" - Company
# "''Now and Forever (End Credits)''" - [[Barry Manilow]] and [[Sheena Easton]]

==Production==
{{expand section|date=January 2012}}
''The Pebble and the Penguin'' was produced by Don Bluth Ireland Limited. At one point, a 1992 release was scheduled. The film was originally slated for release in summer 1994 (while ''[[Thumbelina (1994 film)|Thumbelina]]'' was scheduled for November 1993 and ''[[A Troll in Central Park]]'' was scheduled for March 1994), but due to some production difficulties, the movie's release date was changed to April 1995.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nNhRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V24DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6781,1777435&dq=pebble-and-the-penguin&hl=en|last=Anderson|first=George|title=Animator sees cartoon features improving|date=April 4, 1992|accessdate=January 17, 2012|work=[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]|page=10}}</ref>

==Reception==
The film was panned by critics and audiences. [[Rotten Tomatoes]] reported only 11% of critics gave positive reviews based on eight reviews with an average score of 3/10.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pebble_and_the_penguin/ |title=The Pebble and the Penguin Movie Reviews, Pictures |publisher=IGN Entertainment |work=Rotten Tomatoes}}</ref> The film was given a Two Thumbs Down on ''[[At the Movies (U.S. TV series)|Siskel & Ebert]]''.<ref name="Siskel & Ebert">{{cite web|url=http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=6&subsec=The+Pebble+and+the+Penguin+ |title=The Pebble and the Penguin Movie Review |author=Siskel, Gene and Roger Ebert |date=April 1995 |publisher=''[[Disney-ABC Domestic Television]]'' |accessdate=2010-08-28}}{{dead link|date=January 2012}}</ref> [[Gene Siskel]] noted that the film's animation looks "cheap and unfinished" and "that none of the songs are memorable" while [[Roger Ebert]] added his dislike of the film's [[color code|color coding]] of its heroes and villains.<ref name="Siskel & Ebert" />

The film, made for $28 million, grossed only $3,983,912.<ref name="Boxofficemojo" />

==Home media==
''The Pebble and the Penguin'' was released on [[VHS]] and [[Laserdisc]] on August 15, 1995. It was first released on [[DVD]] in 1999. A new "[[Fox Family Fun|Family Fun Edition]]" was released only in the United States and Canada on March 27, 2007 by [[20th Century Fox Home Entertainment]]. [[Gary Goldman]] supervised the restoration for the "Family Fun Edition", which features color corrections, refielded scenes to hide missing effects and correct other errors from the first release. [http://web.archive.org/web/20070529080508/http://www.donbluth.com/contactus.cfm] The Family Fun Edition was nominated for the [[Satellite Award]] for Best Youth DVD. In 2010, the film was re-released along with ''[[Rock-a-Doodle]]'' as a double sided DVD, but it carries the unrestored 1999 print.

The film was released on [[Blu-ray Disc|Blu-ray]] for the first time on October 11, 2011.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* {{IMDb title|0114108|The Pebble and the Penguin}}
* {{bcdb title|23404|The Pebble and the Penguin}}
* {{allrovi movie|134628|The Pebble and the Penguin}}
* {{mojo title|pebbleandthepenguin|The Pebble and the Penguin}}
* {{rotten-tomatoes|pebble_and_the_penguin|The Pebble and the Penguin}}

{{Don Bluth}}
{{Gary Goldman}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pebble And The Penguin, The}}
[[Category:1995 films]]
[[Category:1990s animated films]]
[[Category:1990s fantasy films]]
[[Category:1990s musical films]]
[[Category:Irish films]]
[[Category:Irish fantasy films]]
[[Category:Warner Bros. films]]
[[Category:Irish musical films]]
[[Category:Animated features released by Warner Bros.]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American animated films]]
[[Category:American fantasy films]]
[[Category:American musical films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films directed by Don Bluth]]
[[Category:Fictional penguins]]
[[Category:Films about penguins]]
[[Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters]]
[[Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films]]
[[Category:Animated features released by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]]

[[bg:Камъчето и пингвина]]
[[cy:The Pebble and the Penguin]]
[[es:Hubi, el pingüino]]
[[fr:Youbi, le petit pingouin]]
[[it:Hubie all'inseguimento della pietra verde]]
[[ja:ペンギン物語〜きらきら石のゆくえ〜]]
[[pl:Zakochany pingwin]]
[[pt:The Pebble and the Penguin]]
[[ru:Камешек и пингвин]]
[[fi:Pikku pingviini]]
[[sv:Pingvinen och lyckostenen]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-10T05:42:36Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ linky

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people". If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' [[WP:CON|consensus]] is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-10T05:10:25Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ +

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Rudeness to the help: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people". If you can't fully conform to the diva's view you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-10T04:57:07Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ +

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLE|battling]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|owning things]]. '''Only''' their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-10T04:49:38Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ +

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], [[WP:HARASS|harassment]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T10:43:48Z

Doc9871: Linies

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to [[WP:BULLY|bully]] their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bully]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T10:02:54Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ fix

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to bully their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively reiterating their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T05:41:54Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ rd

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to bully their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively citing their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often used as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T05:38:57Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ Add.

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to bully their way over inferior editors with a [[panache]] that befits their status as a diva.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively citing their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T05:20:28Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ fix

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]], [[WP:FA|Featured articles]], etc. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively citing their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T05:17:53Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ cl ;

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]] or [[WP:FA|Featured articles]]. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. By excessively citing their own perceived value they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T05:10:34Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ clean ;

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project and frequently promote their own value via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]] or [[WP:FA|Featured articles]]. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. In citing their own value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T04:58:12Z

Doc9871: Reorder: working...

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project, therefore they will frequently promote their own value to the project via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]] or [[WP:FA|Featured articles]]. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. In citing their own value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; "Consensus is flawed": Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T04:46:06Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ fix

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project, therefore they will frequently promote their own value to the project via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]] or [[WP:FA|Featured articles]]. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. In citing their own value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Consensus is flawed: Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies tend to fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T04:41:00Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ fp

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project, therefore they will frequently promote their own value to the project via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]] or [[WP:FA|Featured articles]]. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. In citing their own value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Consensus is flawed: Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies often fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]

Wikipedia:Archiv/Keine Diven füttern

2012-10-09T04:40:38Z

Doc9871: /* Spotting divas */ linky ;

{{essay|WP:DIVA}}
{{nutshell|Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way. Let them go.}}

[[File:Janio1.jpg |thumb|[[Jânio Quadros]] threatened to step back as President of Brazil hoping the masses would rally for him to stay. They didn't. Good for them.]]

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. 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 diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.

== Spotting divas ==

The following are tell-tale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia diva:

; Argumentative in petty disputes: There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right.
; Frequent citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes: Divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project, therefore they will frequently promote their own value to the project via their [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], [[WP:DYK|Did you knows]], [[WP:GA|Good articles]] or [[WP:FA|Featured articles]]. Divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions. In citing their own value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
; Consensus is flawed: Divas tend to feel that ''community'' consensus is far less important than their ''own'' consensus: that of themselves and their wikibuddies. [[WP:IAR]] is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community, but other policies often fall far by the wayside with the diva.
; Frequent threats to leave: This is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
; An Entourage: A truly successful diva has a loyal following. Editors that question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued to the diva, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process.
; Long memory: Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.
; Hypocrisy: A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], [[WP:AOBF|assuming bad faith]], [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] or [[WP:OWN|ownership]]; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute.

== Dealing with divas ==
[[File:Evgraf Semenovich Sorokin - Ian Usmovets Stopping an Angry Bull.jpg|thumb|These fellows are trying to stop this angry bull from running off. However, in the case of Wikipedia divas, just let them storm off in a huff.]]

Like [[Wikipedia:TROLL|trolls]], divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project—at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.

But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a ''weapon'' against other editors and are prone to [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for their own glory. For divas, positive contribution is not an ''end'' unto itself, but rather a ''means'' of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes: they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".

The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When divas storm off, ''let them go''. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.

If you simply wish Divas well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.

In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance—editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project. Most final good byes from Wikipedia happen without much ado.

== See also ==

* [[meatball:GoodBye]]
* [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]]
* [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]]
* [[Wikipedia:Retiring]]
* [[Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you]]
* [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram]]
* [[Narcissism]]
* {{tl|Considering retirement}}

==External links==
* [http://offbeatempire.com/2011/08/flouncing How I deal with flouncing]
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2214447/ Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the web]: "People always...threaten to quit. They're bluffing."

{{civility}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[de:Wikipedia:Diven füttern verboten!]]
[[es:Wikipedia:No alimentes a las wikidivas]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دردانه‌پروری نکنید]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ne nourrissez pas les divas]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neskatinkite primadonų]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Omgaan met diva's]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Não alimente as divas]]
[[sr:Википедија:Не храните примадоне!]]