Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Meta pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

PLEASE include two or three edit history links about the lame edit war. It would be also useful to list the date the edit war was added.

Meta pages[edit]

This page is engaged in an edit war. Why not bring up some heavy artillery?

Main Page[edit]

What April Fool's jokes should be mentioned on the Main Page, if any? This protected page, editable only by admins, normally goes unedited for days—all content is included from templates, so there is no need to edit the Main Page directly. On April 1, 2005, it racked up more than 60 revisions of varying seriousness before finally being reverted to a days-old version. This does not even include all revisions of the templates the Main Page includes. (edit history)

The weather in London[edit]

This is one of several phrases (two more being: a "red link", "like this one") used to provide a deliberate example of a red link, i.e. something that does not have an article. Nonetheless, before the introduction of cascading page-protection it was impossible to prevent mischievous editors from attempting to create the article anyway, as only existing articles (and thus blue links) could be protected. Attempts included simple vandalism, "serious" contents such as "wet" or "foggy" (quickly deleted under CSD A1), redirects to the actual "weather in London" article, and even admins attempting to tag the article as {{deletedpage}} -- all of which defeat the point of illustrating a red link. At some point there was an Official Policy Proposal to mandate deprecation of so-called IPRLs, or "intentionally permanent red links", which, surprisingly, was ineffective. Finally, two years and seventy deletions later, "the weather in London" is now listed under Wikipedia:Protected titles, which is itself cascade-protected and thus allowing it to protect even redlinks -- including "red link" and "like this one" which account for an additional thirty-two speedy deletions in their own rights.

Wikipedia pages[edit]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith[edit]

An edit war on a page about preventing edit wars. Should editors assume their fellow Wikipedians have above average intelligence? Resulted in full protection by two administrators, a waste of a talk page, and a demotion from official policy to mere guideline.

Wikipedia talk:Attack sites[edit]

In the course of the debate over a proposed policy banning all links to sites deemed to be "attack sites" against Wikipedians, some editors enforced the proposed policy against other editors who were, for the purposes of this debate, attempting to provide links to (in their opinion) legitimate examples of an attack site. Much edit warring followed, with accusations by both sides of bad faith, WP:POINT-making, and ulterior motives. The conflict later resurfaced when similar language was added to the No Personal Attacks policy, and resulted in two (to date) arbitration cases.

Wikipedia talk:BLP courtesy deletion[edit]

Edit war over which of two comments should go on top of the other one. Resolved for the most part, yet it continues to smolder to this very day.

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules[edit]

Should the rule to be ignored be singular, or plural? Will working with others be permitted by this policy? Many editors, including a few administrators, spent well over a month trying to decide these critical answers. And then, a few months later, spent well over a month doing it again. See protection log and the story of a change to IAR.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)[edit]

A minor two-word change to the guideline sparks an edit war over whether words in quotes should very rarely be linked or should never be linked. Reactions to these two words involve gratuitous personal attacks and spreads to several related pages in a forest fire, including pages explaining how "binding" the manual of style is supposed to be in the first place.

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship[edit]

Wik's nominations of 9 Wikipedia:Wikicops were moved; the wikicops page itself got in a move war about a week later and ended back at Wikipedia:Administrators. [1]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment[edit]

What is the correct wording to indicate that an RfC may be followed by an arbitration request? Is it "Although not formally required before proceeding to arbitration, many RfCs are steps towards it", or is it "Many, though by no means all, arbitration cases are preceded by a user-conduct RFC"? Three-way revert war that has lasted two weeks and 50+ edits so far.


A simple redirect to an RFC page that was deleted and recreated numerous times.


The meta-irony of an edit war over the presence of {{disputedtag}} on the page, amounting effectively to a dispute over whether there was a dispute, could only be topped by the version without the tag being protected with the protecting admin then adding {{pp-dispute}}. There has more recently been a dispute over whether or not spoilers are even necessary, which has been

Circular wars[edit]

Wikipedia:Edit Conflicts[edit]

The edit war on the Wikipedia:Edit conflicts page, preserved for posterity.

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars[edit]

Edit wars over which edit wars are allowed to be on these pages, or over how specific entries on this page should be worded (oh, the irony). See Recursion; see also tail recursion. Examples have included Cat (under "wording",) William of Orange, Her Late Majesty, Vic Grimes, List of virgins, e (mathematical constant), Template:User admins ignoring policy, Democratic Party (United States) and -- yes, even this entry itself. WP:LAME has also survived at least six attempts at deletion, plus another attempt which was ultimately closed at the nominator's request.