Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Zombies

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 debate was braaaaaiiinns. >Radiant< 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Zombies

Basically the same thing as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What Were They Thinking?... a seething attack on a group of editors opposed to the author which he's trying to get away with by saying "but it's just a joke!". This sanitizing edit reveals some of what the intent is here. I just don't really see what we gain from effectively having an essay where people can say "I think you're nothing but a mindless zombie! Ha ha! Why aren't you laughing?". --W.marsh 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A sincere question from someone unfamiliar with the background of this essay: is the writer criticizing an actual specific group of editors? Or is he criticizing mentalities that he characterizes as groupthink? It looks to me like the latter, and not being familiar with the circumstances that led to this essay, I'm not sure if criticizing groupthink mentalities is out-of-bounds. Of course, if it's the former that's a different matter. I do apologize for being unable to make the determination just from the essay. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the diff above shows at least one specific group he wrote the essay about. --W.marsh 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for continuing with this, but I still don't see to which identifiable group of editors the essay refers. User:ScienceApologist has not, to my knowledge, had a conflict with a single, identifiable group of administrators, but rather has had a lengthy series of frustrations, more against a mentality that's developed (here characterized as groupthink), than against anyone in specific. I can't consider this essay a personal attack, if I can't identify any persons being attacked. --JayHenry (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

JayHenry: see WP:CABAL - Revolving Bugbear 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If I had not seen that diff, there is no way I would have concluded that he was talking about any specific group. And since the sentence is not even there anymore, why delete it? -Amarkov moo! 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment as the person who made the "sanitizing edit". The original version of the essay was much, much more critical. In the beginning the author's malcontent was relatively transparent. I urged the author to tone it down a bit, and he did. Groupthink clearly is a problem on Wikipedia, with or without the incident that the author was referring to. However, with the reference to the specific user in there it appeared to serve as a platform to bolster one side in an ongoing dispute, which I thought was vastly inappropriate. - Revolving Bugbear 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the solution to groupthink (or supposed groupthink) is to call people names. That really just entrenches people more deeply in their groups. --W.marsh 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it was. I just said that, although this essay clearly appears targeted, there is a larger issue. I don't know how to solve it, but this probably isn't it. - Revolving Bugbear 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. To repeat what Amarkov said, I had no idea that this was supposed to be aimed at anyone in particular. Perhaps that is because I am unfamiliar with the author and the dispute being discussed above. Seraphim ^Whipp 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's okay to have a prefab insult page to use in discussions just because it's not instantly clear who was originally being insulted. I'd feel insulted if someone used this attack on me in a discussion. --W.marsh 01:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But there's no evidence that anyone has used this as an attack in a discussion. It's just a funny essay. Seraphim ^Whipp 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Whilst I can appreciate W.marsh's concern that this could be used against people, for instance in an AfD discussion. I believe it would probably say more about the editor using it than the editor on the receiving end. If it is kept then it's only a matter of time before ConZom or similar is used in deletion discussions. Would that really be so terrible? Surely we're not so thin-skinned that this piece of harmless flummery offends us. RMHED (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Don't dekete, I just checked Google and added several sources. Gracenotes^T § 03:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not particularly seething, inflammatory, or soapboxy. We talk about angry mastadons and joke about secret organizations without any ill effects--considering that this is basically a humorous (okay, not that humorous) restatement of WP:CCC I see no reason why it can't stay. --jonny-mt 07:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep provided that no specific individual editors are named. This essay is actually a remarkably perceptive and accurate representation of many editors' mindsets, and an essential reminder to everyone that consensus can change. Consensus is one of the most misused terms on Wikipedia; the Wikipedia idea of "consensus" has long since departed from the ordinary meaning of the word, which is "most people agreeing on an issue", something which very rarely occurs here. While consensus decision-making may work fine for a small community, it is completely useless for a vast one like the English Wikipedia; the lack of structure and formality means that small groups can effectively take control of processes and disregard the wider views of the community. What we need is to move over to a democratic form of decision-making in which every editor's voice counts. (I know I've gone somewhat off-topic here, but it needs to be said.) Walton^One 11:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Knee-slappingly clever and unfortunately quite true.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even as jokes, I am less than happy with metaphors like "Editors must load their rifles with the best ammo they can find and fire as quickly and accurately as they can, directly towards the brain of the consensus zombie" DGG (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I await your equally funny and less offensive rephrasal.--WaltCip (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The words are wiki-linked to mean different things: "Editors must [[Logical argument|load their rifles]] with the best [[logic|ammo]] they can find and [[debate|fire]] as quickly and accurately as they can, directly towards the brain of the consensus zombie"Seraphim ^Whipp 13:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• If this gets deleted, or even if it doesn't, the essence of expression in the first sentence absolutely needs to find a home in some other guideline. There are some absolutely stupid discussions that get brought up over and over again (how do you spell yogurt?) that have three year long arguments, and the only defense of the stupid thing is "because that's the way it always has been." It isn't a good reason for anything. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep - as is, this is a marvel of satire. Ursasapien (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this is brilliant. Per Walton, jonny-mt If DGG is unhappy with the rifle metaphor, I remind him that this is a Wiki and he can edit it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Though I would like to see the Howto section expanded with ACTUAL suggestions to combat groupthink. (I personally need all the ammo I can against these "Delete, non-notable" zombies over here...) -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Brains! Brains. Brains? Brains. (Seriously, though, hard tot think this is meant to attack specific people, and it's clearly meant as humour.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Right below this comment it's being used to call me specifically a zombie... so it's clear how this is being used to attack specific people. --W.marsh 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm officially very stupid, blind, or both. Exactly where? Care to elaborate exactly why you find this page (or labelling) problematic? I see you seem to believe (due to the removed content) that this appears to be some sort of part of a grander mud-slinging scheme. Try to understand this from my point of view: I'm not familiar with every bit of drama and conflict that goes on here, to me, this is Just Another Humour Page, one page among many. If I think really hard, I may even remember that there may have been some Arbcom case or something, but I forgot what the heck that was about. You see, I don't care about Arbcom cases unless there's significant repercussions concerning the whole community.
      Here's an analogy: Two countries are at war, and the conflict isn't beautiful at all to them; a random observer in the nearby third neutral country just looks in the horizon and says "oo, there's some pretty cool fighter planes flying out there". To others, it's a bloody war; to other observers, it's purty fighter planes glittering in the sunset. In its present state, the page is not offensive.
      That said, in WWTD? case, I was leaning toward userfication to keep the page in its "intended" course and avoid conflict (one user's opinions on specific admins are okay, but the page could have turned into a mess if others edited it); here, I'd lean on keeping this in project space to keep this page humorous, just to stomp on the fact that the page originally had content you deemed offensive. As you point out, an editor who wasn't the original creator removed a potentially problematic phrase. Hence, it can be kept non-specific if it's in project space. The archetype of editor the user the page describes clearly isn't unique. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Right below, someone is saying "this Miscellany for deletion may be a consensus zombie"... I took that as a comment about me. --W.marsh 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand where you're coming from but at the same time, it's the person who uses an insult, not the insult itself that is at fault or in this case, essay. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I think it's a hell of a lot more generous than being called a WP:DICK (not saying that you are, by the way). I'm surprised you even take offense to that benign comment. If that's the case, I shudder to think of what a personal attack would do. Plus, Seraphim is right: if a person wrongly invokes WP:AFD to speedy delete a clearly notable article, you wouldn't delete WP:AFD as a result.--WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The comment was not indented for YOU it was indented this Miscellany for deletion the Miscellany for deletion don't care about the comment, however if anyone part of this Miscellany for deletion is takes offense I am sorry that was not my indentation --Looktothis (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm just sick of this attitude that it's okay to call your opponents names so long as you can somehow couch it in tradition or humor or something. I don't think being called a zombie or a dick or whatever is funny for anyone... I am all for getting rid of things, like this page, which help reduce discourse to name-calling. I see no evidence this kind of stuff helps with the various disputes we have on Wikipedia, it only wides the gaps between the various "us" and "them" camps every time we have some page saying people in the other camps are zombies or whatever. --W.marsh 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
            • This is something you'll want to take up at the Village Pump, not at an isolated MFD.--WaltCip (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I need a policy change to request people not call me a zombie any more? --W.marsh 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Weighing the consensus, yes, I believe you do, if that's your gripe.--WaltCip (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." --Looktothis (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

come to think this Miscellany for deletion may be a consensus zombie read this:

A consensus zombie (or "tea drinker") is a person who doesn't actually work towards building consensus, but stands in the way of building consensus by invoking policy and past consensus, as an appeal to tradition, and supports an irrational false compromise in content disputes rather than working towards a rational consensus.

ha ha ha --Looktothis (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (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.