Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin/Archive1

First controversy

Regarding ise/ize (surely one of the most important questions of the day!)... who wrote the bulk of this? The language of their mother country, by convention, is what should dictate how ise/ize is done. JzG's nefarious and facile reversions notwithstanding.

-- a rouge non admin: ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I dun this, and I are British.'nuf sed. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

move to meta

This needs to be moved to metapedia possibly to go with m:MPOV — Dunc|☺ 14:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No objections.Might break the rather clever CydeweysRedirect^TM from Image:Rouge-Admin.png, though. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

rouge? ROUGE? you probably mean rogue 134.117.175.20 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a comment on the disparity, hopefully keeping with the humor of the article :). Domenic Denicola 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Do I detect some sarcasm here? Hmm.I think I'll throw my support behind a move to meta - I think it will fit in better over there. Esn 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be moved to Uncyclopedia. Cheers, The Doctahedron, 00:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible article name change

Shouldn't we move this article to "Rogue administrators"? I really don't know what a Rouge admin is, unless they work for the Mulon Rouge, but that hardly makes any sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not understanding the spelling of 'Rouge admin' is grounds for an IMMEDIATE block. [1] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Moulin Rouge. Roguegeek 10:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rouge is red in french. Does that mean Communist Admins? Republican admins? J-stan ^Talk 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Duh, nope, it means they're "well, red". Baseball Bugs 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. How stupid of me. J-stan ^Talk 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It ain't funny

I'm asking you to remove "Zionist" from the Wikipedia:Rouge admin page. I really don't find it funny, and I hope you're not serious either. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 10:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

of course it's not serious, didn't you see the banner at the top? As for removing zionist, that one's gonna stay. A.) It's a charge that comes along frequently, along with all those others listed, B.) It's an essay, not an article, or guideline, or policy. No one cares enough to remove it here, but they do to revert for messing with a historical entry. -M^ask11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to insist that 'Cowardly' is removed from the same line on behalf of all cowards, but I'm too scared. The Mafia have, however, promised to give a brown envelope to whoever removes 'Corrupt', an unwarranted slur on wheel-greasers everywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no place for that remark, even under that banner. You're taking the "wiki spirit" way too far, it's still under the Wikipedia: namespace and not at your private member page. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. —Nightstallion (?) 09:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Rouge Admins are unfairly discriminating against Discordianism by not including us in the checklist! Same for those of us who practice Canadianism, eh?   ¥    Jacky Tar  17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do see a problem, this stinks! You should grow up and try to contribute. --Swedenborg 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of humour disturbing. —Nightstallion (?) 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

and I find your sense of humour disturbing. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 01:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the word entire offensive, please remove it! (kidding> HighInBC 13:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not as much a joke as the author intends. Whoever wrote this is accustomed to the accusation that he and some other admins are "red." There is some reason why this is being said.

The claim that these RED ADMINS stand by what is verifiable against what someone merely regards as The Truth is simply a lie. These Red Admins, these leftist Wikipedia administrators, are the ones who think they have The Truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.20.55 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion, and note this as really stupid, yet quite funny since someone wasted their time making this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepinitril (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm laughing and can I join the club? --Morenooso (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

External link

The external link seems to be missing from the Domain Name Server accessed by my computer; it's as if the domain name didn't exist. The Wayback machine hasn't archived it, but as of now it's still in Google's cache. Has it been deleted, or is it a local DNS problem? --ais523 13:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Must have been a local problem; it's working again now. --ais523 12:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be deleted

Article makes no sense at all. And yet the adminds delete some informative articles,but this one takes the cake.

I'm undecided on this. I stumbled across it about 20 minutes ago and have been contemplating it since. Although slightly humerous that should not be used as a mask for it to be offensive which I fear it is bordering on. Equally, although humerous, without a proper explanation of what it means and what a Rouge Admin is it is nothing more than a nonsensical joke to most readers. I don't think deleting it is the answer, perhaps adding a second section along the lines of "but seriously..." and then explaining in plain and clear english what this page is refering to? perhaps someone who knows what it means could do this? The other thing is by its very nature this concept and article does not assume good faith which I find quite concerning especially when its endorsed by administrators of wikipedia who should be abiding by the good faith policy. Don't get me wrong please, I dont for a second suggest that this is by any means a deliberate flouting of the good faith policy but feel what has been intended as little more than sly humour is being taken by the bulk of its readers to be something else. Just my 2 pence...well more like £15. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article should be deleted. When can *I* become an admin or whatever it takes, so that I can create really unfunny in-joke comedy articles presented as Wikipedia-sanctioned documents too? wikipediatrix 21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA is open to all.Now go back and read the essay carefully, looking for the hidden meaning.I promise you there is a serious and important point in there.Just zis Guy you know? 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd never be made an admin because I've made too many enemies nominating articles for deletion that were near and dear to a lot of people's hearts, plus I've committed the cardinal sin of (politely) daring to question a couple of well-known super-popular admins who don't like their authority questioned. As for the hidden meaning, zen koans give me a headache, and I like to think I'm not the dullest pencil in the box, so I know the article's esoteric parable must be lost on many other readers as well ;)wikipediatrix 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are any admins who are both well-known and popular. ;-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure there is Tony Sidawy is well known and very popular. Whispering^(talk/c) 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know despite my earlier comment that I didn't think deletion was the answer I have now changed my mind and will probably be requesting this page for deletion shortly. Having re-read it several times in an attempt to fully understand why it was written I now feel that this article is unsalvageable and I fear it sets a bad precedent for readers for the following reasons:

• By using the term 'Rouge Admin' in its title and throughout it attempts to add veracity to its argument with power. Adminship is not power however.
• As an essay it is poor because it does not consider alternate view points or multiple ideas on the subject matter and so only presents a one sided argument which isn’t fully explained.
• On the face of it, it's intended to seem humorous. It isn't unless you're one of a minority to whom it is an in-joke.
• It uses the facade of humour as an excuse to be offensive to a considerable group of people. Putting a ‘this article contains humour’ tag on it is not an excuse to be rude. It's like calling someone a fat idiot and then saying ‘no offence intended’.
• Although it conveys the seemingly good underlying message of admins deleting that which isn't properly cited and verifiable, it does not state this. And even now after having read the article some 6-7 times I am still not entirely convinced that is its message.
• It totally fails to actually make any sense to most readers because of its cryptically worded humour.
• But for me personally I feel that I've saved the best till last. This essay fundamentally does not assume good faith. Rather it assumes that there is a group of editors willing to go to any lengths to make their small voice heard at the expense of the encyclopaedic clarity of Wikipeidia. On a very fundamental level this assumes that there are those here exclusively to do bad, exactly what the assume-good-faith policy serves to prevent. I feel personally this view should never been taken to another editor (or group of editors) even if it is probably true. Most wikipedians simply want their voice to be heard, and for some minorities although it's done with the best of intentions, they often try to take a bigger slice of the pie that is Wikipeida than they are entitled to. That is not a reason to write something like this labelling them as an almost psychotic group bent on the disinformation of Wikipeidia.

You know what would make a better essay? – Why wikipedians should refrain from writing essays like this that are more likely to provoke a negative response from their readers than a “yeah I agree” consensus. This is a ‘’’dangerous’’’ piece of literature in my opinion and I would be much happier to see it gone. I will see how people respond to this as I am open to suggestion very much, perhaps I have misinterpreted it. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. This unfunny and disturbing page should be at somebody's userpage as a subpage (i.e. User:JzG/Rouge Admin), definitely not as a "Wikipedia:" page. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is not a pie. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like this essay quite a lot, and find it useful, and would be strongly against its deletion.--Aldux 01:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay thats a fair comment. But can you substantiate it with some reasons why you think it should stay. "I like it so it should stay" isn't really a reason for anything. As for it should stay because wikipedia is not a pie, I fear thats going to need some substantial explanation. Look at this please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, 'Wikipedia is not a source of personal essays'. I realise this is slightly different as its an essay about wikipedia, but hardly a useful one. Can you please substantiate in which way this 'essay' has 'helped' you? --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must say I appreciate this essay first of all for its sense of humour, and at the same time terribly serious; you have to pass the time I do editing in Balkans-related articles to understand how many seem to believe that wikipedia exists to discover the ultimate truth, that is being hided by the Greek or Macedonian or Bulgarian or Romanian lobby, and hear very serious and good editors insist that there is among most admins active in the area a super powerful Macedonian lobby! And the reactions when you timidly ask a source! You'll promptly find guys calling you "fascist", "liar", "Albanophobe", "Anti-hellenic", "Slavomacedonian propagandist", alone in a field in which you are often the only non-Balkanic editor. But then, I'm a bit "rouge" myself, so I may be considered partisan ;-)--Aldux 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this page being deleted. How any page considered to be an "in joke" (or a joke of any type for that matter) and not meant to be understood can even exists on Wikipedia is beyond me. Roguegeek 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well,lucky me. I clicked this from JzG's user page. If there's a vote someday,I say:delete,delete,delete. I see this as "an inner Wikipedia thing that must be for the adminds(nice)". --The jazz musician 05:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly against deleting this. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it is obscure, or only an in-joke of a minority. I originally read this a long time ago when I was very new to Wikipedia, and it made sense instantly, and the way of presentation made it persuasive. I haven't bothered to register until recently, so I'm not part of any "cabal" either - it's hard to be an insider without an identity. The article is a cautionary reminder of how to not conduct yourself in the course of criticising others lest you make a fool of yourself, and as such behavior is commonly observed on the English Wikipedia (or the Internet in general), it does serve a purpose. It may be correct to "never give advice - a wise man won't need it, a fool won't heed it", but that's too cynical for me. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, what I say can not possibly be true, as the article is fairly new. Yet I clearly remember reading this (or something very similar to it) on Wikipedia. I guess this means that memory is not to be trusted overly much, and there are many ways to be a fool. This does not affect my opinion, though. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, this article must not be deleted; the usage of irony makes its point better than any serious words could ever do ... if you get it that is. Those that don't are hardly likely to stay reading it for long so nothing is lost. Abtract 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so.Rouge admins might be a problem; rogue editors may well be a problem. Rouge admins, however, are the ultimate in policy wonkery.Fuck process* Guy 22:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

*© Tony Sidaway

Hmm. There are some strange opinions above.

This article is not esoteric: after one has some experience, certainly after 1000 edits, everything the article makes fun of becomes very clear. It is not difficult to understand.

What is so offensive? That it advocates orthodox policy and makes fun of people who spew epithets at people who enforce it? This idea of a hidden truth has befuddled many editors, and they edit pages in a bloodlust in an attempt to reach it.

Some of the conspiracies on talk pages make the UFO conjectures seem plausible by comparison. Rintrah 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Economic totalitarianism might...

Maybe one of you Red Admins (o! I love the Celestial Bureaucracy!) might want to check out the Economic totalitarianism page and the various AfDeletion made. Although they're have been several ones, the first one was closed on the (latter proven false) grounds that it was a copy-vio; the second one was arbitrarily "speedy kept", as the third one which overlapped with some Wikipedians arguing whether they should open another Afd (sic: it's not arguing about the article anymore, but about if we are entitled to demand its deletion!); and the fourth one, albeit groundbreaking (is that English??) arguments against its being kept (such as, research gives as much economic fish and economic something than "economic totalitarianism", is Google books are supposed to prove anything; or that one article can't be made by any random passage from any famous book - comment made by historian User:172, etc.) But a (Green?) Admin passing by closed the case as arbitrarily as it had been closed the preceding times, with the unashamed comment:"some strong points have been made in favor of this article" (mainly, that the term received several hits on Google, an argument ridiculized by the aboves examples by (wise) User:Trialanderrors). So, I know this might not be the best place to ask for it, but again, since we are dealing with totalitarianism, and you are Reds (even harbouring some kind of Red Brigades logo on your page), well I guess some of you might know what's the correct procedure to delete what the original author of the article (before it being entirely replaced by a quote from Friedman) himself qualified as his own research (WP:NOR and not copyvio, as was thought in the first Afd). Tazmaniacs 12:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A serious postscript?

Some of the talk at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_10#Category:Rouge_admins and some of my private talk with Hoopydink, the nominator, leads me to believe that a serious postscript might be a good thing to have. This is a serious moral/philosophical notion (the idea that Doing the Right Thing ^TM trumps process wonkism, and always should, here) wrapped in humor.(as an aside, I take great pride in having been placed in this category...) Some suggest that it may be more palatable if the serious part is spelt out somewhere... What do folks think? I could take a crack at it (I have pretty extensive notes on what I want to convey based on IRC chats and so forth) if there was support. The flip side is that explaining jokes, even "ha ha only serious" ones sometimes destroys them. Maybe place the serious part in a show/hide??? ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, it's (or at least, the associated category is) the userbox-of-people-who-delete-userboxes, wrapped up in "insider humour" that's about as amusing as...actually, similes fail me, especially as some "wag" is certain to maintain that "I find <X> to be hilarious", for any simile object <X>.(Perhaps "a MOAB on the colocation facility" would be the closest thing to the wikiholic's consensus definition of "not in the least".)Yet another "screw process" essay is the last thing we need -- though I may be biased, since if I were screwing process, I'd delete it as it stands anyway as unencyclopaedic, divisive, elitist (and more especially elitist-wannabe) nonsense.Alai 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You put that very precisely, I think. -Splash - tk 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come, Lar. Serious, moral and philosophical? That's more of a joke than the page itself. If you are a proponent of Doing the Right Thing and Screwing Those With the Temerity to Disagree, then just get on with IARing and don't construct clownish edifices to give that course of action some kind of justification beyond "I want to and I'm right". You judge people's RfAs based on whether they add themselves to a page that declares itself to be joke; thus you don't think it to be a joke, and it can't have a serious bit that needs explaining. -Splash - tk 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wow. I judge people on how they construct their answers to the questions I ask, I have supported people who answer this both ways. The rest of the comments here by you and Alai, I can't even parse very well... this is a serious concept wrapped in humor. If the humor is getting in the way maybe it needs a footnote/postscript/explanation. ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that some of the comments to Lar's query reflect why an overhaul of the category page is needed, which is what he was trying to accomplish by starting this discussion.I don't think that Lar, or anyone (as far as I know) judge RfA candidates based upon their answer to an oft-used question about the candidate's position on the "Rouge Admins" and/or "Admins open to recall" categories.I think that the question simply gives the candidate another venue to voice his/her opinions and ideas about Wikipedia. This is beneficial not only to the candidate because he/she gets to "speak" to the participants, but also the participants themselves, as they get another look at the candidate.Also, the question is purely optional and if left unanswered, I can't see that being a big deal.I think Lar is trying to address some of the concerns that people might have about a potential elitist or "screwing process" nature, and it's rather inappropriate to mock him.With that, I believe that the category, as it stands, is inappropriate and needs to mention the seriousness that it attempts, but ultimately fails to convey.Any philosophies and aims should probably be bluntly stated, rather than implied, as it's obviously giving off the wrong impression.I'll note that I was the one who first opened the category for discussion, and I would be open to keeping the category if we all collaborate to ensure that the right message is being sent, which, based on some of these comments, is obviously being lost in the humour. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand. Your "idea that Doing the Right Thing ^TM trumps process wonkism, and always should" means that you mean that people should ignore all rules but that you feel slightly uncomfortable with membership of a Category:Wikipedia admins who ignore all rules (link shortly to be blue, no doubt). Making it funny makes it easier for you to go along with.

To rain further on the parade, the actual text of the page (which I just re-read to check) appears to be a veiled comment about dealing with POV-pushers who have a version of the truth they wish to see established on Wikipedia and which admins keep on preventing from appearing. That's a perfectly reasonable action, but it really doesn't stack up to making a category out of those who do as opposed, presumably, to those ethically-poor admins who don't routinely go looking for POV pushers to get rid of. -Splash - tk 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're reading way more into this than is intended.It's a reaction to the traditional cries of ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! from frustrated POV-pushers, nothing more.Guy 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Extremely offensive logo

Using the modified red brigade image for this "rogue admins" essay as some kind of logo or insignia is highly offensive.The red brigade was a violent terrorist criminal group, would a wikipedia essay be allowed to use modified nazi or al-qaeda logos to identify a group of users? --NEMT 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This logo was put up for deletion on commons: Commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Rouge-Admin.png. As of right now I'm not sure there is a clear consensus either way but the image seems to be made up of elements that are a lot more neutral than say, a swastika. I'm not sure what an al-qaeda logo looks like so can't comment on that. (I'm also not sure that al-qaeda is held to be quite as universally bad). I think that if some really nifty logo were developed many of us are not necessarily wedded to this image and would not object to a change, but I do not see change as needful and said so on the deletion discussion... ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This deletion discussion was closed as a keep no consensus. In talking with folks, there was some discussion of an alternative image... I took a crack at one, it could use more work but it may be of interest. Comments welcomed. I did tis based onImage:Jolly-roger.svg and I have the original paint Shop Pro layered vector image. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost all humor is at someone else's expense. It's nearly impossible to not offend someone and yet have a laugh. In fact, the very term "rouge admin" originated as a joke at someone else's expense. The creator of the image, Geogre, is one of the least likely people to offend anyone on this project. People need to keep things in perspective here. FeloniousMonk 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys can't spell

Mossad Agent (talk · contribs) brang up a great point here. It's not spelled rouge, it's spelled rogue. Shouldn't we move this page to Wikipedia:Rogue admin? After all, not all admins are reddish-pink. —Whomp t/c 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's intentional. Don't know why. Carson 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The joke is that many users when complaining seem to mispell the word. (I have seen it mispelled by complainants once or twice). JoshuaZ 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

By the time most complainants have reached this stage, they are pounding the keyboard so the typing goes a bit wonky. It's a deliberate point, and if you encounter sufficient numbers of these people you'll also start to realise Wikipedia is run by a shadowy, nefarous 'cabla'. --Davril2020 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler?

Someone really needs to post a spoiler for this page, 'cause I don't feel like reading it over and over or finding talk page diffs to figure out the entire "hidden" meaning here. Sincerely, daft user BigNate37_(T) 06:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Rougelike! 1.5

I put out a new version of this little game, so now you can practice your rouge skills in a more realistic environment. Download, play and tell all your friends!

http://common-lisp.net/project/lifp/rouge.htm

-- Grue  12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This page is nonsensical and badly written

I ask for its deletion. Bunch of uncoherent statements. 200.91.136.129 09:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoosh... Jefffire 09:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I've laughed out loud too many times on Wikipedia...is there a barnstar I can give Jetfire? --LeyteWolfer 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

Nice word huh? Know the relevant joke?

A patient bursts laughing outside his psychotherapist's office. When asked, he responds:
You call us nuts, but it is you who has a door-label admitting you are psycho-the-rapist!

In that sense, I think admin-is-trator fits perfectly in this essay! •NikoSilver• 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rouge-Admin.png nominated for deletion again

see commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/2006/11/01... I have been working on a replacement image Image:Red1200px-Jolly-roger.png (as described above, it would get renamed and will be created as an SVG), and I guess I better work on it a bit harder. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: there has been a change in how deletion requests are organised at Commons. The link given above in the first notice of deletion goes to the second discussion now... The first one can be found here: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rouge-Admin.png or here [2] Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are Commons censored now? I thought they hosted everything as long as it's free. Who cares for what purposes it is used?  Grue  14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Commons does have a project scope and all media uploaded there needs to fit within it, or it's subject to removal. The argument to be made is that since this is a free image and is used in an acceptable way in a WM project, it's within scope. The censorship or "anything goes" arguments would not be very convincing. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A possible replacement, without Red Brigades baggage?

I would like to suggest that we all switch to this image, which is still quite ROUGE but doesn't have the Red Brigades connotation. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest changes

Hoopydink is in my view, editing in good faith, although I'd rather he did come here to discuss instead of reverting. He tried a rouge deletion of the whole thing, which I reverted, and then discussed with him on IRC, saying if it needs fixing, he should fix it.

Personally I kinda like the many different slanderous group identifications, that's the point. As is the Official Cabal Decree. But maybe I'm a stick in the mud. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Naturally I agree with your two points. I hope I haven't given the impression that I think Hoopydink was not editing in good faith, I presume he was. However that doesn't stop me thinking his edits greatly reduced the ironic value of the page. Abtract 22:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Singling out two minority religions (note that I use the term "minority" from a Western perspective) is rather inappropriate and blatantly offensive.Also, lots of humourous pages are tagged with the humour template, so I cannot see a reason to have it remain.Therefore, my next edit will be to revert the page back to my original tweaks.When editing this, or any page, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your own personal playground to single out religious groups.hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted again. The use of those terms is completely non-offensive, and the notion that people will take the page as a serious policy if we don't have an ugly banner with a cat laughing at our own joke is, well, laughable. Please stop edit warring. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi!I made the original change to reflect a more appropriate version - it's beyond me why you would want to remove the humour tag, as it is obviously humour.Furthermore, it's beyond me why you would want to lump people's religious faiths into largely derided political ideologies.It reeks of racism and also looks like admins on a power trip want to somehow preserve this page for some sort of self-legitimacy.This page and others like it should not be on Wikipedia, for it blurs the line of appropriate admin conduct and sends the wrong message.The underlying message is appropriate and valid, however the accompanying nonsense most certainly isn't hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I fall under at least three of the labels in that sentence, and have no idea how anyone can take offense at it. The sentence is not poking fun at those groups, it is poking fun at those who claim that anyone who opposes their edits is a member of one or more of those groups. Please consider carefully before you throw around the 'racism' card - Zionism and Islamism are not racial groupings. As for the humour tag, the tag I replaced it with serves the purpose perfectly well without the problems I already mentioned. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that we both have rather different opinions of what constitutes appropriateness. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Following Xoloz's change

I drastically cut down the list, partly because brevity is the soul of wit, and partly because some of the labels were out of place - for example, "Anti-fascist" is a complement, so I moved "Communist" to juxtapose "Fascist" instead. Equally, "Pro-Zionist" and "Pro-Semitic" are not common pejoratives, so I moved "Anti-Semitic" opposite "Zionist". Then I just cut off some of the more obscure ones to reduce the whole thing by about a line - if the line's any longer than it is at the moment people's eyes are going to glaze over. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually trying for the same goal via another method and saved it despite edit conflict. I think we now have a clear illustration of all complements. Feel free to throw it away, but let's just give it a chance and expand/fix this. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My initial thought is that I don't like the new way; it looks confusing, it is somewhat 'forced' (eg pro-semitic), in some places it is wrong (Anti-Muslim is not the opposite of Islamist) but, most damning, it misses the point which is to show as options those groups that are in the real world actually blamed in the most common conspiracy theories. I would like it to go back to a simple list with the forced groups (those added out of a sense of fair play) to be eliminatedAbtract 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right that "Anti-Muslim" isn't the only (or primary) opposite of Islamist.Secularist, or Quietist, works just as well.Likewise, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not synonymous.(In fact, a large portion of the fundamentalist Religious Right in America -- as well as moderates with the Nazi party before them -- could be characterized as pro-Zionist, whilst being fiercely anti-Semitic.)The point is merely to ensure that there are no more misunderstandings like Hoopydink's.This page should never be mistaken as an endorsement of any ideology listed.Any list that only includes so-called "common conspiracy theories" is destined to be regionally-biased."Pro-Semitic" is a forced term; but the disgusting idea that "Jews secretly run the world" is very common in America's far right-wing.Likewise, secular Westerners are more likely to worry about "Islamist radicals" than is a devout Muslim.Point is -- this page is a joke, and if that part of the joke can't be made relatively inoffensive, it needs to be eliminated altogether.A counter-balanced checklist is fairer, and still funny, I think. Xoloz 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. First time I read it, I had to read further below the text to find out it was humorous. When I did, that was what made me ROFL-LMTO. I can imagine just as well someone who doesn't. We need that 'complementary' (or not-so-complementary-but-who-cares) hint IMO. •NikoSilver• 22:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To help, I slipped in "Anarchist" for "Anti-Fascist"; "Jew-controlled" for "Pro-Semitic" and "Black Panther" opposite "White Supremacy."

There is a danger that the whole point is being missed. This article is not "a joke" it makes a very serious point using irony; the fact that it is also very funny is a useful side effect. I am in full agreement with being equal handed (NPOV etc) but it surely doesn't apply here. This list (a very small part of the article) should IMHO be limited to those groups the general reader would recognise as being cited by conspiracy theorists. None of the groups included here is being abused, indeed their right to exist is being defended.Abtract 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, "ironic humor" is what I'm referring to when I say "joke."With respect, the point I fear that you're missing is that any single list "the general reader would recognize as being cited by conspiracy theorist" is assured of being idiosyncratic, or regionally-biased.I want to include things you think are uncommon, but they are common to me, and vice versa.It's good to include both, so that no one gets the idea that the list is ideologically-driven. Xoloz 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I've made my points. I am clear we all have the same objective so I will just let it happen. It still amazes me how articles I am watching seem to get better as time goes on even when I think they have taken a slightly wrong turn they seem to improve. Maybe just goes to prove I don't know everything!Abtract 00:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the list approach - it disrupts the flow of the prose. If you actually read it, then by the time you've got past it, you've forgotten how the sentence started. What does having more examples than the original eight add, either to the humour or to the point of the article? Nothing, really. When writing anything, if you can delete text without losing something, then you should, always. Unless you're writing knowledge management articles or something. I'm not going to revert again but, without meaning any offense to Nikosilver, Xoloz and others, I hope someone else will. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I will tweak it. Duja► 09:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have "tweaked" it to read better and to reduce the list size. Religious fairness (if thought necessary) is retained with zionism/islamist/christian fundamentalist without the need for all the "antis". I took the liberty of removing the greek reference as being not mainstrem enough but put it back if thought good but without the anti please?Abtract 09:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy that christian fundamentalist (perhaps it should be simply "christian"?) has been cut out but I have done enough editing here for a while, I am beginning to get too close to it so I will take a break from it for a week or soAbtract 11:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it simply as overlong and not too frequently accused of conspiration. I don't mind having it back either, if only for balance. I hope we won't vote about the contents of the list

. Duja►

The "humour" template

All pages of this nature should be tagged appropriately.Please do not remove valid templates from the page hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One question: Why is it needed? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There's precedent to tag pages appropriately.As such, I don't see why this page is exempt.The tag is needed to reflect that it is, in fact, a joke.Removing the tag only serves to somehow legitimise this nonsense hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I must notice that Wikipedia:Esperanza is not tagged as well. Should we invent one, in retaliation of WP:POINT? After all, not all wikipedians like the idea. The tag is needed to legitimise that nonsense as well. Duja► 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the consensus at WP:NCR was to add the cat but not the tag. Maybe something similar should be done here. --ais523 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The category's already added. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hi all!I apologise for my edit warring on this page and my snarky conduct during the recent MfD.I've always been aware of the humour of the page, but was confused as to why certain religious entities were grouped with non-secular political ideologies that are generally derided or viewed as evil.While I think that MfD's can sometimes help an article be reconstructed by allowing for a more visible forum for discussion, I went about it the wrong way.Again, apologies to all, and I pledge to refrain from editing this article, so as to leave it to more unbiased parties hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice note.Abtract 09:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell

As it stands the nutshell statement is the precise opposite of what the article actually says and is not therefore a summary at all. I realise that it was inserted by the revered original author to avoid confusion but IMHO it spoils the impact of what is otherwise an excellent piece of irony. I haved tried twice to get the wording reversed to better reflect the article and I certainly don't want to go to war on it so I am simply asking here if others agree enough to comment or to make the change yourself. Abtract 10:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll drop my two drachmae on it. Feel free to revert me. •NikoSilver• 10:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also think JzG's version of the nutshell spoils it. If we can't agree about that wording, we'd better remove the nutshell altogether. Duja► 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I made it a question (as in: if you can't help thinking that, then read this). I also tweaked the nutshell. Comments? •NikoSilver• 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a partial revert because this wording makes no sense - however, I'm ambivalent over whether the nutshell should be ironic or not (despite my edit summary which was slightly wrong). In fact I'm ambivalent over the nutshell being there at all. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the question hints somehow without spoiling the joke. If someone can help with better English that's ok. I'm gonna add it back and listen to what all others think too. •NikoSilver• 11:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If it was "Can't you consider..?" instead of "Can't help considering..?" the English would be fine, but it's the wrong tone of voice. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried smthng. Please correct me. •NikoSilver• 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And now we're back to the ironic version again. I give up - I don't see why we need a nutshell for this page. And please don't say 'because lots of others have one'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of others have one. :-) Think of it this way: If you feel admins fight you because they have some sort of an agenda, then read below to see if that is the case. The nutshell perfectly defines those to who the article is primarily addressed by this exact question! •NikoSilver• 14:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell.It has a nutshell for two reasons: first, I thought the idea of a nutshell with a picture of an engineering nut and the image title "this decree is nuts" was funny; second, a small number of real, honest-to-God, established Wikipedians have missed the joke.We all agree, I think, that the humour tag was a bit... humourless, so I added the Nutshell as a way of placating the valid concerns raised by those few individuals.Any more of this and I will be getting out my Spider-Man costume.Guy (Help!) 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely the problem with that approach is twofold:

1) The main impact of this page is on first read (it certainly was with me anyway; I stumbled across it and loved it) so anything that reduces the impact of this first read is counter-productive. An ironic nutshell is on-message and gives nothing away but a corrective one (as now) spoils what is to come and spoils the all important first read.

2) I am confident that pretty well everyone (including those recently involved) reading this knows it is intended as a "joke" but some may not feel that the humourous or ironic value merits the, they would argue, potentially offensive use of certain specific groups in the section we have been discussing for some time. Surely those people are not going to be satisfied by a one-liner that makes it clear it is a joke since they know that already?

For my money, we either need a fully ironic nutshell or none at all; but hey life's too short to argue anymore.

Preferably the latter.Abtract 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten it with irony. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct on all accounts. I just thought that my question version wouldn't give away so much. All or nothing. Agreed. •NikoSilver• 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten it with ironyAbtract 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to have agreed "all or nothing" (?) I have removed the compromise nutshell as this spoiled the page by revealing that it was not to be taken at face value too soon.Abtract 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have agreed on all or nothing.This is humour, but it's also in project space and we have evidence that some good-faith editors are missing the point.I am keen to avoid that, without fundamentally compromising the original intent of the page.I cannot believe we are actually getting into a lame edit war over this.I added the nutshell for the stated reason: it points out, in reasonably gentle terms, what we also point out in the last paragraph of WP:NCR: that perhaps someone is taking things a bit too seriously. I don't think I am a humourless bastard. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're a humourless bastard (quite the contrary), but, you are "fundamentally compromising the original intent of the page". <teasing>Are you becoming less rouge because of your arbcom candidature?</teasing> Duja► 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK life is too short to argue about it so I wont edit the nutshell again (for a while anyway) but I hope others will see my all or nothing point. I certainly don't want to take it too seriously and I am grateful to you for originating the article which I like a lot. Abtract 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Before asserting that I am compromising the original intent of the page, you might like to check its history ;-) Guy (Help!) 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely "the original intent of the page" (do pages have intent?) is immaterial. This page now has a life of its own and is therefore available for any editor to edit as she thinks best. I for one still think the impact of the page is much reduced by a non-ironic nutshell ... indeed that is the whole point of this nutshell - to warn viewers in advance that it cannot be taken at face value. I think it's a shame but hey life's too short ... Abtract 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know its history very well ;-). Duja► 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever

I don't understand this page, but the game is funny, so what the heck.
WiiWillieWiki 19:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rouge" is French

I don't read all the statements but is there any relevant information about the fact that the flag is red and "Rouge" means "red" in French ? The French touch of humour ? Gwalarn 00:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Rouge is a typo of rogue. People accuse admins of being rogue and sometimes mistype it as rouge, hence the tongue-in-cheek essay about rouge admins. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarify?

I had to read this page several times before I figured out it was sarcastic. Maybe the humor tag should be kept, or else it should be rewritten to make things clearer?

Is there any chance to develop a category of rouge editors in the case of suppressing "The Truth"? Ekantik 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Or rewritten to make it actually funny, perhaps?I'm not sure I follow the point about the category;are you referring to Category:Rouge admins and its (IIRC recently-deleted) baby-brother wannabe counterpart?Alai 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[TINC]

>>subject<<

That is all. 208.38.59.90 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I want someone to throw in "Mathematician"

... or something. I've found (i.e. made up) theories about how the Pure Mathematicians are trying to take over reality by explaining everything in terms of math but are waiting to "finish" the work first. I don't expect anyone to actually add it, but I believe there should be some more less-serious accusations, such as Cabalist or, hm, maybe something about whoever readers of the Da Vinci Code think is behind the Holy Grail thing. I've never heard of a coward's conspiracy anyway. While I HAVE heard of the left-wing and right-wing conspiracies (Bushist?). Soccer Mom conspiracy, too, though not in those words. Maybe I just missed the whole point. --Raijinili 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's probably the case. Conspiracies about various cabals [TINC] on the internet have been around since the USEnet was the internet.

To ruin the joke by explaining it, any admin who changes anything that any editor disagrees with is automatically part of some top secret cabal [TINC], thereby making them rogue admins (or perhaps something more complex). the rouge admin part is because the people who complain the most and the loudest are also invariably the most cixelsyd and frequesntly misspell rogue. although I like their explanation better.

Gene S. Poole 23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism

As a Nihilist, I demand that Nihilism receives the same amount of critsism in this article as Atheism. Just critizing Atheism (and not Nihilism as well) insults my religious feelings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccwelt (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

This is hilarious! Thanks for the laugh. --Ronja 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That Flag.

There his been a minor back and forth (or, FTMP, me and everyone else, phht) about the use of that flag to represent us as a group. And when I say us, I mean we, the Rouge. So I ask my fellow Rouge (and only the Rouge) if they, too, are uncomfortable with the flag being on the Wiki page and the Cat page, or if they are generally cool with it. For those unfamiliar with the the flag and what it represents, take a gander here. (Also, I am not insinuating that George or Guy intend the flag to literally represent the same thing or are trying to acquaint being Rouge with being terrorists - it's probably there 'cause it looks cool, which it kindof does.) Anyway, I don't want to remove it again if everyone is OK with it. Consensus and all that wiki jazz. No Big Deal. Just sayin'. Discuss amongst yourselves. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As the joke is that we're rouge (rosse/red), and that we make unilateral moves, I can see why such a banner was added. I can also see why it can be seen offensive. I'm open to its removal, but I'm open to its retention as well. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not find the joke of the flag particularly funny, and I have seen several people that find it offensive. As such I think we should replace it with a picture of the Moulin_Rouge, River Rouge or Rouge: the Movie. >Radiant< 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This old painting is nifty, and PD. Someone on Commons also created a red pirate like flag. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

alternate flag

The someone on commons is me... I suggest we keep the moulin rouge pic as it's neat, but add this image where the red brigades derived flag was. That's been suggested before but we didn't have consensus. maybe now we do??? closer? ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Meh. It's better than the previous one as I suppose this one isn't particularly offensive to anyone (except possibly pirates), but it's still not actually funny. Also, it's "rouge admin", not "rosse admin". Yes, I know the words mean the same, but the pun only works with the former. >Radiant< 10:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FSM?? who cares if we offend the pirates, I like it warmer. Well, it's a wiki, feel free to create another version, (name it something else please) and upload it. Inkscape is fun. Thing is though, I don't see the need for the image itself to be "funny". Just evocative. The original one wasn't, to me, and neither of the other images (the eye, or the club) are "funny" either. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have marked this so called "decree" as being disputed for neutrality for a very clear reason. It is too subjective. And it even has the namespace of "Wikipedia". Therefore its neutrality is very important. However, it is very subjective and I hope someone will clean it up. --Raphaelmak 10:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

{{POV}} tag is used only for atricles. In case you haven't noticed, this page belongs to Category:Wikipedia humor and as such, it necessarily expresses the views of its creators; WP:ESSAY and WP:HUMOR are not required, nor can be, nor should be written with WP:NPOV. Duja► 10:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Category name?

I think that Category:Rouge admins should be renamed to Category:Rouge wikipedians, and the wording a bit touched to accomodate this. The rationale is that several respectable wikipedians who are not admins for one reason or another apparently endorse its letter and spirit; well, they're free to attach themselves to the current category, but that kind of gives a false impression that they are admins. I know that WP:CFR is supposed to be the right place, but it might even ended up deleted there, so I guess we'd rather have some debate here. Duja► 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Best of all, if we refrain from actually creating the category, it will be a red link, emphasizing the rouge-ness of it all. :-) Stan 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Important citation needed

(I see no evidence that ROGUE admins either use aftershave OR wear clothing- particularly female rogue admins, which I would be, were I even an admin...)

Sue Rangell 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd nominate you for RFA based on that! >Radiant< 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll hold you to it, When I think I'm ready, the job is yours! :) Sue Rangell 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Money

I want money....or candy. Sue Rangell 08:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Marking as humor page with humor template

Not to be a strict nitpicky meanie or a party-pooper or anything, but although I am un-oppositional to the humorous and sarcastic content of this page, I must object to the lack of a {{humor}} template message at the top. Even worse, I put this template in, and it was removed. I don't appreciate this reversion (here is the edit log):

03:07, 15 March 2007 Sue Rangell (Talk | contribs) (Removed Humor Banner- We take this page very seriously! Anybody can look at it and see how critically serious this page is!)

Ha ha, yes, funny. OK. I get it. I know it's obvious to a reasonable person that it's a hoax, but to be consistent with Wikipedia standards, there should be some kind of disclaimer before all the sarcasm/humor stating that it's a humor page. Maybe the article is funny, but denying it the template disclaimer isn't. --Wykypydya 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Smiles sweetly and curtsies. Please replace the humor tag if you feel super-duper strong about it. Of course I won't edit war, but perhaps the humor tag will stay down by consensus. :)

Sue Rangell 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I have placed a humor banner here on the talk page. Perhaps that will satisfy all parties? If not, I encourage Wykypydya to replace the banner, I won't take it down again. If it's that important to him then it's that important to me. Sue Rangell 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

ha!

I clicked on your user page and thought it was really funny. Abridged 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

rfd

If the intended audience for this page is an editor frustrated with the treatment of his/her contribution, how is a page full of argumentative and debasing text cluttered with nonsense supposed to improve the situation? I still can't tell what purpose this page serves, other than as a celebration of elitism and abuse of power; like, for example, closing this own page's rfd [3] after only 2 hours with a vote of 4 to 2 —Kymacpherson 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this page is intended to help a POV-pusher or original researcher to see the error of their ways. I think it's intended to blow off steam about such situations in a humorous fashion. While I don't agree with the early closure of the MFD, I do think that this page is pretty great. TomTheHand 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As such, I maintain that it belongs in user page space. —Kymacpherson 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an essay. We have tons of them, written by users to give their opinions on issues and to blow off steam. Essays are a well-established part of the project namespace. We do sometimes delete them when they violate policy or don't contribute anything, but there's wide consensus that this is a good one, and I'm pretty sure that if the MFD had continued there would have been an overwhelming movement to keep it. Check out the results of the last one. Yes, it was closed in a rouge-like fashion as well, but that was after 18 keeps, 1 userfy, 1 undecided, and 1 delete (apart from the nom's implied delete). TomTheHand 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

N.B. from WP:NOT#FORUM (3) ... Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. —Kymacpherson 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is that this essay, among dozens of others, belong in the Wikipedia space. You can't Wikilawyer your way around widespread consensus. Essays that are widely considered to be pretty good are placed in the Wikipedia space. Essays that aren't are generally moved to the user space. TomTheHand 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out a pretty clear discrepancy between policy as it's written and as it's being practiced here. If the help page text is immaterial, can I request that you review the content of that page and correct it. —Kymacpherson 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not immaterial; if you want to write an essay on Wikipedia, you should do it in your user space. However, if your essay is pretty good, you may be able to move it to the Wikipedia space. Which essays are able to exist in the Wikipedia space is a matter of community consensus. TomTheHand 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Equal weight / due weight

I'd like to talk about the following sentence:

They further demand that the dissenting opinions of those who believe The Truth™ is actually complete bollocks be given equal weight.

Translated,

The rogue admins demand that mainstream opinions be given equal weight.

I changed the last to "due weight," but JzG reverted. I think there might be a misunderstanding about either what "they" refers to, or what "the dissenting opinions of those who believe The Truth™ is actually complete bollocks" refers to. Could you explain your interpretation of the sentence? TomTheHand 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

...What the heck...

Ok, what is this? I know it's a joke, but it is being treated as a real article?! Some people may take this seriously, and as such some noticifation should be made ON THE ARTICLE that it is a joke. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

walk on...there is nothing to see here. This page does not exist. There is no Cabal. Sue Rangell 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass Vandalism Campaign

Is it true that the people involved in this organization are involved in a mass vandalism campaign against Wikipedia articles and administrators?

• AGREE - It must be clear to any sane person that only the Rouge Admins stand between Wikipedia and The Truth™ Abtract 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? Who told you this? Rouge ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we have a leak to plug! TomTheHand 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To joke or not to joke. That is the question.

Although this page is not meant to be taken seriously, i've met quite a few people who fit the idea of a rouge admin. Except for the fact they weren't admins. BassxForte 02:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Or indeed rouge ... Abtract 07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

...What exactly did you mean by that? BassxForte 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Err who me?Abtract 07:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you meant by "Or indeed rouge..." BassxForte 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am personally offended that wikipedia would keep such an article, and only have the "This article is intended to be humurous and not actual research" on the talk page! That's like having those things on the bottom of microwave dinners that say DO NOT TURN UPSIDE DOWN! I do not believe this material is encyclopedic, and I plead for the sake of wikipedia's goal of collected knowledge, that this article be deleted. Discgolfrules 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm down... just ask for the menton about it only being "humorous" be put at the top of the article itself, and not just the talk page. BassxForte 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The "SCREW" tag at the top of the essay makes it sufficiently obvious that it is humorous. TomTheHand 15:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that anyone attempting to look this up would have no clue what "SCREW" was, and would simply assume that this is the truth. At least put a realistic warning. Essentially, it's better to put out a warning then to assume that whoever reading it is intelligent enough to understand sarcasm. Discgolfrules 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe the majority of people who read the "SCREW" tag realize immediately that the essay is a joke. I'm sorry that you don't get it. TomTheHand 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a rouge admin...yeah I'm not too proud of what I do. It puts food on the table so...you know how that is. Actually due to my pre school vocabulary I have no idea what a rouge admin is. Sounds like me though. I applaud the one responsible (Zojo 23:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Bar de l'admin rouge

The picture shows a red mill with this legend : "bar du l'admin". Assuming that this sentence "tends" to be in French, it is bad constructed. To express "of the" (something or somebody) in French, you have different constructions depending on the genre :

• the following noun starts with a consonant and is masculine, you must say : "du (quelque chose)"
• the following noun is masculine and starts with a vowel, or is feminine, you must use : "de"

In our case, "admin" starts with a vowel, the correct construction is "de l'admin". "Du l'admin" is a barbarism. Not really simple, is'nt it? OK, stop the French lesson.

In fact, this picture is from the famous entertainment club in Paris called "le Moulin Rouge". The original words are : "Bal du Moulin Rouge". Which is correct ("Moulin" starts with a consonant). IMHO, to avoid further discussion, may somebody change the word "Du" to "De" in the picture, please ? Thanks in advance. Gwalarn 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aw, heck. I edited it and then saw this. I just went to bar du admin rouge, since the l isn't visible, and my French classes are so long ago (ain't saying how long) that I don't remember the grammar well enough to know whether that's going to get me a wince or a beating from the francophones. The Dark 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not beat anybody (I make so many mistakes in English myself). In fact, there is no "l" in the picture, since there were no need in the original expression. But you have to use a "l" with the transformed expression, because "admin" starts with a vowel; in French, you can't use "du" before a vowel, you have to say "de l' ". So I changed it again to a version which fits with the French language rules.

The confusion is due to this picture, partially, but wrongly, modified to fit with the article. It was for fun, but it is less and less funny to have to spend time justifying why the pictured message will simply cannot exist. I hope the explanation will be now suffisant. Or maybe the "Rouge admins" are willing to create a new language, close to French but using some original grammar rules? Why not, while any group tends to create its own language. Gwalarn 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I can't correct the legend. Is the page protected? If so, there is no warning. How to put : "Bar de l'Admin Rouge"? Gwalarn 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back for you. Now I'm debating the merits of getting into an edit war with myself over the use of "de l'" versus "du" :P The Dark 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you from a French-speaking reader. About an edit war, it is easy in French : the most often a rule has many exceptions, so you can argue easily :-). But not in this case, sorry. Gwalarn 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey look

One of the images is gone. --Masamage ♫ 02:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome

This page, and I suppose the talk page with it did tickle me pink. I'm not sure whether it was the amateurish stab at irony in the article, or the Nostradamian aspect. This page has in effect created the SCREW from whom it is decreed; those defending it would technically make up the cabal, while those asking for deletion are inexperienced, or stupid because they don't get the joke (one of the most vicious and patronising forms of "intellectual" elitism). The fact that this article insults the majority of Wikipedia users (even if they are anonymous, or nonymous and undesirable) is in direct defiance of the Wikipedia ethical principles, and protected by a small "cabal", I suppose we should call it, who find it funny. In deciding to keep an unsourced article containing an in joke for a select number of editors to the detriment and offense of others is proving the very point this article ridicules, firmly establishing the cabal.

On the basis of the power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely maxim I am sure we will, in time, see the evolution of the "Administratte Rosse", that is unless they do not already exist(and it is not just "Trolls" or "idiots" who feel that way, I can assure you, and I am, on occasion , inclined to sympathise with their concerns, however boorishly expressed.) It will not be long before people are employed by companies or governments to obtain adminstrator status and proceed to subtely push POV and hidden agendas for their chosen governments, and articles on politics will become well orchestrated propaganda campaigns (though again, I remain unconvinved that this is not already happening and as such refrain from editing, in the knowledge that some of what I would write down would offend small numbers of editors and administrators, but enough to terminate my life as this user).

Freedom is just far to open to abuse, hence elitism is necessary to keep it in check, and elitism can, very rapidly, evolve into cabalism, and the worse kinds thereof. Wikipedia's freedom has already been limited and is sinking slowly into a bureaucratic quagmire, as well as taking huge amounts of flak from the public and the press over the gross fallacies that dominate some articles. As Wikipedia gets more stick and as more and more users complain about the cabal of rouge administrators, they will slowly turn in on themselves, increasing their powers and diminishing those of others, as all failing elitist movements do until the system crashes.

So, if asked whether it should be kept, I'd say yes; it is funny for two reasons:

1. The irony works against the point of the article and not for it, creating an even better ironic pun than that which was originally intended. The mere existence of administrators is enough to prove the exist of a cabal, of sorts, and it is not unreasonable to state that there are several administrators who have their own agendae; it is impossible not to, you are only human. Power corrupts...
2. Although poorly written from an encyclopedic point of view, it does cover a topic that has been raised, even by some serious editors, and as such merits documentation.

This immature and unnecessary article is hilarious, and for all the wrong reasons. My two cents... Whiskey in the Jar 10:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You might have missed the point. The essay does not make fun of the majority of Wikipedians. It makes fun of the small minority who write awful stuff, see it ripped out of articles, and start complaining about a vast conspiracy working against them. If you have not run into anyone like that yet, you will. There literally is no cabal; in some cases, when everyone disagrees with you, it's because you're wrong.

An additional, very important point is that this is not an article. It does not need to be, nor is it supposed to be, sourced or written from an encyclopedic point of view. It's a humorous essay about Wikipedia. TomTheHand 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Points may have been missed but it was worth it to see words like agendae and nonymous reintroduced into the language ... and shame on you the original author for your "amateurish stab at irony". Abtract 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"You might have missed the point. The essay does not make fun of the majority of Wikipedians. It makes fun of the small minority who write awful stuff, see it ripped out of articles, and start complaining about a vast conspiracy working against them." The majority of Wikipedians are just that, or the type with only about ten four letter words in their vocabulary... or maybe I just need to get away from the RC page... I know there is no cabal, officially, but the fact that this page is for people who have to stick around before understanding the joke does go some way towards widening a gap between newbie and wikiholic. As for being an article, it is in Wikipedia, the free "Encyclopedia", maybe there should be a place for these kind of things, too good to consign to oblivion but, apparently, inflammatory to at least a minority of the Wikipedia population, if not more and almost entirely unencyclopedic in nature. Having said that, newbies probably wont find their way here too quickly.

"Points may have been missed but it was worth it to see words like agendae and nonymous reintroduced into the language ... and shame on you the original author for your "amateurish stab at irony". " Yeah, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been EUI...

Either way, the article aint so bad I guess, but if people have a problem, maybe it should be redirected to someone's user page or a Wikimedia page. Anyhow, we all have far better things to be doing, like patrolling recent changes, yay... So i'll not press the issue, but thank you both for your comments. Whiskey in the Jar 22:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aw hell, I just reread my post, I thought that was a dream, I never remembered actually writing it. Many apologies for my conspiracy theorist rant. No more EUIs. Again, very sorry. Whiskey in the Jar 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of this, all I can say is:

Is being Rouge a matter of volunteering? (Citizen Rouge) being designated? (Knight of the Rouge Republic) or just being? (Comrade Rouge) Inquiring minds want to know --or would the appropriate person even need to ask? --Bobak 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• The short answer is "if you need to ask, then you're not". In general it results from being involuntarily designated. >Radiant< 11:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes!

It was recently pointed out on the admin board that "the administrator tools do not include a tab which says "act like a dictator and ignore everyone else"" - can we please remedy this important issue as soon as possible? >Radiant< 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). 193.95.165.190 12:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Danger of confusion

Preliminary to my main point is a comment on the tag at the top of this page (Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin). It states that 'this' page is not serious but humorous. I assume that it references the essay (Wikipedia:Rouge Admin) and not this talk page. However, putting it on this talk page makes it look as if it is the talk page that is humerous rather than the essay. I would therefore ask for the tag to be moved or deleted from this page to ensure that at least the discussion about the essay can be formal. If this talk page is in fact intended to be humorous, I then apologise for placing this comment here, but then ask where it would be possible to discuss this talk page (Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin).

I believe the Wikipedia:Rouge Admin page should be deleted. My reason for this is that I believe that no page in wikipedia should include humour (other than humour that is being described), in the same way that it should not be offensive (other than when describing offensive things). Humour and offensive content both cause problems: humour causing misunderstanding and offensive content causing offense. All arguements that state that some people understand the humour are irrelivent in my oppinion, as people some will not, just as you would not include offensive content on the basis that almost all would not be offended by it. I personally love humour, and see the merit in providing a source of amusement along with information, any bonus to the article given by the humour is infinitesimal compared to the missunderstanding caused, as this is a thesaurus and not a humour site (and there exists at least one site dedicated to exactly this sort of humour that could be used instead). This purpose of the site is the reason why I consider causing missunderstanding as bad as causing offense. It's sole purpose is to provide knowledge, and so anything that inhibits this function must surely be a bad thing.

Personally, I frequently use articles on maths that are almost beyond my comprehesion; I am fairly sure I would not be able to use them if they included humour. Luckily for me, most people consent that it would be innapropriate to use humour there. However, I am sure people would not understand the humour on this page (there are comments from some of these people above) or in fact any particular use of humour. Though this page may not even be an article, but rather a policy page, I feel this is irrelevant, as someone not understanding the page could interpret it as an article, and also it sets a precident that could be detremental and is unnessisary. I have not mentioned areas of this page which could be offensive, though I'd imagine most people could find something someone could construe as offensive. However, they are another reason. Here offense is not caused by an attempt to inform, but for humour's sake, and I therefore consider it unsuitable (as opposed to the debates which concluded otherwise about offensive content intended to inform).

On the side subject of policy; possilby humour pages like this are in keeping with wikipedia policy, but wikipedia is designed to inform the masses and should not require a large outlay of time and intelectual energy to be used. Thus, I feel policy is irrelevant in this case, as it would cause the problems I have discussed above for readers without a lot of knowledge of wikipedia (and for some understanding the relevent policy would require a significant exertion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.253.141 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I really really really dislike this article

Are good admins really so beleaguered that they need sarcasm like this to blow off steam, or to maintain their sense of self in the face of unreasonable attack? If so, okay, I can at least see a reason for this article.
But even if so, this is great moral support for a mindset where any editor complaint of an admin decision is mere whining by default.
The rueful humour of The Wrong Version is enough. This is quite too much. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

article/essay/whatever. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that one can purchase a sense of humor on the internet nowadays. What will they think of next? I am still awaiting the release/distribution of "Omnipotence in a Jar." - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you just tell me to go buy a sense of humour on the internet? That's not much of a response to what I actually said. Perhaps I merely have a comprehension gap (to go along with my humour gap?) because I don't get your second gag either, if such it be.

I see that the essay is humorous, okay? I see that it is rather well done, in fact. And were I an admin, I have no doubt the recognition laughs would up the chortle factor considerably.

But it's still a joke for admins against editors without extra buttons. Specifically, irrational editors of a certain type without extra buttons, but that may be rather a fine point, given some of the admin missteps one can see in a reading of AN/I, say. Perhaps it is sometimes easy to apply those qualities to those who make trouble for you. Or perhaps this article just infinitesimally adds to a minority culture supporting admin default bad faith, insularity and abuse of powers. Hey, it's possible.

This is humour, yes, but what does it actually say? A more accurate nutshell for it would read, " Administrators always oppose editors because their edits violate policy, rather than because the admins are conspiring with the Forces of Darkness." That's not really a message we should be sending out to admins, IMO, no matter how cool we are when we do it.

It seems to me therefore that you have to argue that this essay functions as a salve or vent that is useful to admins to an extent that it potentially helps the project more than potentially hurts it. If it's just for a laugh, even a good one, then nah.

It's tempting to go on a bit more, since I can almost feel my sheer unfunniness sucking the humour from nearby pages with every letter I type, but it's rather an unfair advantage on my part, so I'll quit. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually like this article I think it's very representative for our admins and their tastes. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen such a pile of rubbish in Wikipedia, or anywhere else.- AVM (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

86.42, you have an excellent point. Strongly reinforcing it is the fact that almost every criticism here, no matter how mild or valid it may be, gets the treatment you received: "Haha you don't get the joke and/or are irrational, go away." (Even though "getting the joke" and agreeing with the way the page is written are completely separate subjects.) The overwhelming majority of admins and admin decisions are intelligent, honorable, and productive. The vast majority of complaints are selfish and whiny. But insisting that this page keep its present form, strongly insinuating that ALL complaints are invalid, does the good admins a disservice.

All it takes is one abusive bully misusing his admin tools to make it look like this page, as it's currently written, is an open circling-of-the-wagons around such behavior. Insinuating that all admin decisions are always right makes the rare exceptions look like the rule, because cognitive dissonance usually leads a person to completely disbelieve the contradicted statement. And there will always be at least one abusive bully around, because it's too easy to hang on by Wikilawyering, pretending to apologize (but quickly resuming the behavior), and/or appealing to "consensus" from allies.

A number of excellent compromises have been offered; labelling the page as humor is perhaps the best and most widely-supported. I myself would prefer something like: "False rouge admins crop up from time to time, trying to ego-trip or push their individual POV instead of supporting the Cabal's nefarious conspiracy. Unfortunately for these benighted souls, the real rouge admins are even more merciless with them than they are with those who try to spread The Truth." It might be too idealistic, but it would give people hope that justice gets done - and hope makes the difference between an editor staying and contributing, or throwing up their hands and going back to being an occasional IP.

Sadly, I expect that you and others will continue to be ignored, and that every time a new person brings up the issue they'll be outnumbered by the same group reaffirming that this page can't be modified because all admin behavior follows the rules and anyone who says otherwise is full of it. But that expectation is probably why I'm now an IP who happened across the page by accident and won't see it again. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

no no no

People that use this icon accualy go on rages against wikipedians and normal people over stupid things, the guy who wrote this can't realy be british.. becouse any one can learn the difference in, "I am" and, "I are"... The ONLY way a foreigner could mess that us is if he/she is talking about a action, wich you differ from "he and i are going to the mall" then take away the he, and you have "I are going to the mall" in no other contex does this make since.. Why are things like this allowed but notable scientist start things that never make it past wikipedias standards... lame. peace -roy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royissick (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this comment makes rather little sense. By the way, the WP:ROUGE page is a fine example of sarcasm. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

UGh! You mean this is intended as satire?! <grin /> Dlohcierekim 13:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

merging from former Category introduction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

File:Admin Trophy.png

Rouge admins firmly believe that adminship is a trophy, and will block anyone who states otherwise.

This is a list of rouge admins.

We promise to block IPs past November 28, 2055, block and protect the talk pages of editors we edit war with, and unprotect the main page on April Fool's day.

All hail Jimbo! And long live WP:IAR!!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not sure how or even if it's a good idea. But I wanted to place it here in case it's wanted after the category is deleted. - jc37 01:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pillars of Evil

Did that not link to Wikipedia:Five pillars in the past? That seems more in the spirit of the thing. We relentlessly and without remorse enforce these evil edicts as we suppress the TRUTH, stamp out POV and close discussions per consensus. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for Membership of the Rouge Admin Cabal

I don't know whether I can do this, but I wish to nominate a WP Administrator, who is a wannabe to the RAC, for membership of the Rouge Admin Cabal. I demonstrate his readiness by showing you a dramatic WP:IAR deletion which he so speedily completed earlier (Using a non existant CSD criteria (Article is a trainwreck)) after a case of Reichstag Climbing - This can be seen at Administrators Noticeboard (Item 32) - Future Perfect at Sunrise would be an ideal member of the Rouge Admin Cabal. He is aware of the nomination which has been enclosed in a Barnstar. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sssh! How dare you blow the cover of that dastardly agent of our Macedonian Greek Central Balkan cabal!?! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Global warming scepticism, Ian Plimer and his book

I see you had an interest in pages concerning global warming before. Your comments at the RfCs on this Talk page would be gratefully accepted. Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Forever!

I think that in the spirit of our current fund drive banner, which in fact contains no link and serves solely as a statement, we should create a people's movement or perhaps a guerilla uprising: sanctioned with the task of maintaining this great Encyclopedia in the face of the dark world leaders who presumably seek to crush and abolish our beloved Wiki. We shall fight from the underground, valiant and steadfast, securing the freedom and longevity of our aforementioned beloved Wiki, and all shall remember our cry of... freedom! WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

We must create a new project page and begin recruiting memembers at once! We already have a banner, a slogan, a core. We just need a secret place of meeting and perhaps a {{humor}} tag and the movement begins!

Your fellow in Wikipreservation, Some guy (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Can and should we invite Sarah Palin to be an honorary rouge admin? --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to "See also" section. --Ezeu (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this, Uncyclopedia?

This is not a site for humorous articles. Try Uncyclopedia, geniuses.

Someone delete this page.

EDIT: Fuck it, after reading the disscussions here, it's obvious to me that there IS a conspiracy of admins to keep this inappropriate page on a serious website. Therefore, I'm taking a stand, though I am committing Wiki-suicide and this IP address will no doubt be perma banned by the conspirators.