The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep (only recently survived VFD nomination).
Lame page used for POV pointscoring and attacking users This is the ultimate nonsense page.
It is used on occasion by trolls who are fighting edit wars to attack people defending articles from attack. (Banned user User:Skyring used various his 22 sockpuppets, for example, to attack every user who refused to allow him to break MoS rules or who reverted his edits as a banned user. Yet attempts by User:Proteus, myself and others to remove his claims were then put on the page as lame edit wars by him, and users who appealed for that to stop were pilloried.
It is used to trivialise serious accuracy disputes (eg, the correct year Nancy Reagan was born in is regarded as a supposed lame edit war; applying naming conventions, MoS standards etc.)
There are some edit wars that can deserve criticism but this page seems more about taking the piss on users than actually doing anything useful. Any attempt to enter into serious debate about the issues, or to stop the page being used itself as a weapon in edit wars becomes futile. This page in its current form is neither NPOV nor accurate, but filled with POV score-settling, often from people who are more interested in ridiculing fellow Wikipedians than in actually doing serious work themselves. It is the lamest of lame pages and deserves to be binned. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
And yet, it moves. This page illustrates what happens when editors refuse to collaborate. VfD is often a tactic resorted to by a sore loser, so when the page deletion is proposed by someone whose edits are involved in one or more of the listings, we are entitled to take that into account when considering the matter. This page is humorous, harmless, and instructive. It provides some relief from Wikistress. It allows us to see ourselves as others see us, warts, words, and all. I oppose the suggested deletion of it. --StanZegel 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The fact that a year-banned user, banned for wikistalking by the ArbCom, was able to use the page as a weapon in his attacks on Wikipedia, and that any attempts by users to defend themselves from attacks were then described as "lame", shows the ludicrousness of the page. The fact that users who tried to get something as elementary as the right year someone was born correct ended up having their efforts described as "lame" shows the page's ridiculousness. The fact that people trying to enforce conventions on US/BE spelling, or MoS rules, on Naming Conventions, on trying to enforce a truce and stop a troll reigniting it, etc all found themselves pilloried on the page by others shows just how worthless at best, provocative at worst, this ridiculous page is. All it is is a means by which some wikipedians (including trolls) can attack other users. This is supposed to an encyclopædia, not a game, much less a game that allows vandals to smear other people's work and get away with it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Thinking about the enforcing part of Jtdirl's tirade... There possibly is the thing something should be learned from. Wikipedians, volunteers, are not very eager to get enforced, imo. Perhaps some more diplomatic means would do much more better than enforcement in the style of Jtdirl and company. After all, discussion and collaboration is not totally forbidden here in WP. Arrigo 10:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to accept that the complaint is made in good faith if you had not attempted to avoid drawing attention to it by omitting an edit summary and marking the edit as "minor" when you placed the VfD notice on the talk page. Personally, I think anyone doing that should be automatically banned for a week if they are a newbie, three months if they should have known better. It is deceitful and unworthy of someone who provides much valuable content. But as for the page under discussion, Children need a confined and designated place to fight; better here than throughout the Wikipedia. --StanZegel 05:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
If it was done as a minor edit it is because that is how my preferences are set up and I forgot to unclick the box. Please don't make unfair personal attacks. This is a serious issue about a POV page that contributes nothing to Wikipedia but allows people ridicule the work of serious users trying to uphold standards. Do you really think users trying to get dates right in articles only to find that they are ridiculed for it on this page, will encourage them to both trying to get things right in other articles? That users fighting sockpuppets will bother if sockpuppets can smear them on pages like this, and have users like you defend their entries? Or that people will bother trying to keep a coherent house style when their efforts to ensure the community-agreed conventions and MoS in the face of edit wars by anonymous IPs are ridiculed by people like you as lame? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Whether you tick the minor edit box or not, you know that you should state an edit summary and that making something a VfD should be mentioned in the edit summary. --StanZegel 06:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Jtdirl, I want to ask you the following, and I expect an honest answer from you: Do you regard the edit actions over Queen Victoria (and other articles with those styles etc) made by User:Skyring and his alleged sockpuppets as lame or not lame? Please answer honestly and clearly. 18.104.22.168 06:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this tonight's identity you are running with Arrigo? Maybe you like to explain why you like to pretend to be two different people on Wikipedia, and in particular why you hide behind your IP when editing this page? It is that sort of gaming that has made this page a joke. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 07:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Jtdirl, I am still waiting for your honest answer to the question I posed above. 22.214.171.124 07:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The page's use as a vehicle by sockpuppets has. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Jtdirl, you are doing marvellous job in show. If the banned User:Skyring is reading this page, I believe his "sockpuppet attacks" will decrease drastically as he laughs out loud rolling on the floor, thus being somewhat less capable of stroking keys. I am sure the humor of this situation is not missed by most of viewers here. Arrigo 10:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A good page of object lessons -- which some do not seem to be learning. Apparently, User:Jtdirl is pitching a fit because at least one of his edit wars is on there -- and to get recursive, a subsequent lame edit war to remove any mention of it. So now we have this, the lame nuclear option. --Calton | Talk 06:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
No. an "edit war" of mine was not in there. My enforcement, along with others, of a ban was, put there by the person banned by Jimbo and then by the ArbCom. The user under at least 5 sockpuppet identities, used it as part of his "war" to get around his ban, for example:
(cur) (last) 02:47, 22 August 2005 JYolkowski m (Reverted edits by Except for the tool to last version by Jtdirl)
(cur) (last) 02:46, 22 August 2005 Except for the tool m (Nah, it's still lame)
(cur) (last) 02:38, 22 August 2005 Jtdirl m (Reverted edits by He's a good bloke and to last version by Jonathunder)
(cur) (last) 02:36, 22 August 2005 He's a good bloke and m (Check it out - it's about as lame as they come!)
(cur) (last) 01:57, 22 August 2005 Jonathunder (RV dubious addition ("new" user's first edit was to this page!))
(cur) (last) 01:54, 22 August 2005 For playing the fool (→Names)
Other users too have been targeted on that page that way. One frequent contributor hides behind an IP rather than use his account to add in attacks on people who get in his way. It isn't a Lamest edit wars ever page as much as an Attacks on users by other users page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All right, now at least one thing has changed. Me. --126.96.36.199 06:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Very strong keep. As long as the write-ups are kept NPOV so as to skewer both sides, I don't see the problem. This page is healthy for Wikipedia, as it puts things into perspective and serves as examples of how ludicrous things can get — and as a reminder to everyone that one should never be blinded to the lameness of an argument. This page makes me laugh, and God knows there's little to laugh about edit warring. What's even more lame is when a person involved in a lame edit war tries to edit war to get it off the list. Bottom line: screw 'em if they can't take a joke. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Move to a Talk page. Yes, the content is "healthy for Wikipedia", but not as an article. MCB 06:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful page for fetching precedent for edit war disputes, learning how to edit Wikipedia, or just having a few laughs. I particularly liked that article about an American city that its creator wanted to preserve in the exact same state. — JIP | Talk 07:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia: or User: space. This is interesting enough to keep around but it is definitely NOT an encyclopedia article. Thatdog 07:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to note that this is already in the Wikipedia namespace. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. So technically Jtdirl is nominating the redirect for deletion? I'd be fine with that as long as we keep the actual article. ;) Thatdog 07:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Thank you for correcting the VfD title, Khaosworks. Thatdog 08:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. There isn't a whole lot of wiki-humour which is actually funny, but this page is an exception. If someone is making malicious or bad-faith additions, that should be dealt with in the normal manner and is not cause for deletion. Also, this survived a VfD very recently with near-unanimous consensus to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The page is instructive. As a sideline issue, the diff  shows an edit by nominator Jtdirl, marked also "m" (minor edit), which IMO must be regarded as very disruptive. Arrigo 08:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not suitable for article space, but I'm fine with it in WP space. --Alan Au 09:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We've already been through this, haven't we? The person who's trying to get this deleted sounds like a grade-school hall monitor; the other kids never liked that type. *Dan* 10:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The strongest KEEP I've ever given in my life --Fallout boy 11:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep, close vote. Bad faith nomination. The lame edit wars page is awesomely useful. Prototc 11:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.