Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Volunteer Marek/Edit warring is good for you

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  withdrawn ibicdlcod (talk)  06:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek/Edit warring is good for you

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This page is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Proposed_decision. Does an essay advocating edit warring really belong to Wikipedia? ibicdlcod (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Please read the essay. It admits in the first line that the title is clickbait. Observing how Wikipedia works leads to the regrettable conclusion that the essay correctly describes how things get done. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The title of the essay is a hyperbole and the point it makes, though debatable, is sensible.--Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Extremely ill-conceived MfD. Not only is this an essay, for which we have always historically allowed latitude for various opinions, but this is also in userspace, within which the standards are even more forgiving. I know it's tempting to try and score "Wiki-kudos" by going after an editor who has been previously involved in controversy on Wikipedia, but there is really nothing to be gained here, and at any rate, it's a great essay. I agree with a lot of what it has to say.
 * The messaging is not strictly anti-policy, and the points raised shine a light on some of the practical truths of how Wikipedia operates. I think this phrase in the essay really captures the actual message most of all: think of what would happen if nobody ever reverted your sorry ass. This is one of those things that sound good in theory, but deep down in your BFG heart you know it wouldn’t work well in practice. You’d get lazy, sloppy and stupid. What VM is describing is a tried-and-true technique known as the Socratic method. So in short, yes, this does belong to Wikipedia. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Essays do not have to have community consensus in agreement with what they say, and user-space essays even less so. It's perfectly acceptable for a user-space essay to express a viewpoint that, arguably, does not have wide agreement. And given that it is, in part, facetious, it does not argue for violation of policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a user space essay on the reality of what really happens. -- Whpq (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep normal userspace content per above discussion.—Alalch E. 21:14, 17 May 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.