Wikipedia:Don't be high-maintenance
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: Don't threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way. Wikipedia is not about you . |
Occasionally, some long-time users come to believe they are more important than other editors, and act in ways to seek regular validation of that belief. Validation is obtained by delivering and obtaining compliance with
The writer hopes that this fit of pique will attract a flood of "please don't go" messages, along with plenty of support for their side of the dispute that triggered their round of unreasonable demands. The end result sought is that the "high-maintenance" editing behavior gets the editor exactly what they crave – validation and support – leading to a triumphant return to the project or article, at least until the next petty conflict. Because
Threats to "leave and never come back" inevitably invite the response: don't let the door hit you on the way out.
High-maintenance behaviors to avoid
Any of the following are telltale signs that you are acting in a high-maintenance manner:
Self-importance
You feel you are (and may directly claim to be) the most important and knowledgeable editor in Wikipedia, at least in your topic of preference.
If you have a lack of editorial humility and do not work as part of the editing community as a whole, this is a problem. Worse yet, if you consider yourself Wikipedia's
Remember that no one can verify your credentials (unless you are incautiously
Rudeness to "the help"
You can't be bothered by the "little people", and are habitually
Those who don't fully conform to your views or demands should not find themselves cast as less valuable members of the community; just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them "
Frequent threats to leave
Your primary
If you keep threatening to quit if you don't get your way, the community will get tired of this and simply
Argumentative in petty disputes
There is no issue too small for you, and disputes are more about
If you
Citation of personal perceived "rewards" in disputes
You want others to think you are indispensable to the project, and frequently promote your own value with editing history stats.
Don't make a point of rubbing in your
Convinced consensus is flawed
You tend to feel that editorial community
It is a mistake to become convinced that whoever is in your WikiProject or otherwise has been most active on a particular article has free rein to determine consensus about everything in it, and that the rest of the community's input is just
Long memory for others' faults
You never forget your "enemies", or even the blunders of others, and rarely forgive them without a public show of groveling. Meanwhile, you are resistant to apologizing for or retracting much of anything yourself, even in the face of clear evidence of error on your part.
Repeatedly bringing up ancient grudges that have destroyed someone's credibility in your mind is a hallmark of high-maintenance behavior, as is attempting to "horse trade" for concessions from them, or
Persecution complex
You are highly sensitive to criticism, even in jest, of you or your editing camp's behavior or views, and feel constantly challenged by annoying editors who have nothing better to do than play "wiki cop".
Do you run to noticeboards to complain all the time about others' "disruption" or "attacks"? If your own editing is restricted, do you blame others and complain about the outrage, even campaign to place the administrator's head on a pike, rather than accept responsibility and make moderating changes in your editorial approach or behavior? These are not useful approaches. Do not allow yourself to be drawn to the idea of protesting by doing something
Hypocrisy and double-standards
You rarely, if ever, admit to engaging in disruptive editing practices; in your view, only your opponents do this, they do it constantly, and you make a point of accusing them of it.
Do you often conclude that those with opposing views to yours are
Dealing with high-maintenance editing
Like an
Unlike other productive contributors, editors with high-maintenance issues use their productive contribution history as a weapon against other editors and are prone to gaming the system for their own glory. For them, positive contribution is not always an end unto itself, but rather a means of gaining clout and editorial power. They treat this reputation capital as something like a currency in content disputes: They feel they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with "lesser" editors. This perceived influence also gains them much-needed validation during their frequent "retirements". Such editors usually adopt an "us vs. them" approach to pick up supporters to themselves or their factions, but this inadvertently alienates a large portion of the community.
The best way to deal with high-maintenance editing is to ignore the tantrums. If they storm off, let them go. If you beg them to stay, or engage in public hand-wringing about their having left, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months. If you simply wish them well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back; but with a better attitude. An editor who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he or she will not be treated more importantly than any other editor, and that one single user cannot make-or-break a project of such magnitude.
In some cases, a high-maintenance editor will stay retired, but the loss will quickly be filled by other editors who are not so high-maintenance, and for whom the consistent goal is not self-promotion and personal validation, but rather improvement of the encyclopedia. Most final goodbyes from Wikipedia happen without much ado, and the project as a whole naturally has constant ongoing churn of incoming and outgoing editors. Some editors also take wikibreaks of a year or longer. The announcement of a "retirement", even in anger or frustration, is often not permanent, and returning editors after long breaks frequently behave differently and more productively, focusing on narrower content-editing tasks instead of the topic- or process-wide "causes" that got them into trouble to begin with.
See also
- WP:Don't bludgeon the process § No one is obligated to satisfy you
- Wikipedia:Asshole John rule
- Wikipedia:Don't take the bait
- Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram
- Wikipedia:No vested contributors
- Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
- Wikipedia:Rage quit
- Wikipedia:Retiring
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you
- Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable
- Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia
{{Considering retirement}}
- meatball:GoodBye
External links
- "How I deal with flouncing", Ariel M. Stallings, Offbeat Empire
- Farhad Manjoo on the laws of the Web, in Slate: "People always ... threaten to quit. They're bluffing."