Wikipedia talk:Rouge editor

Moving, expanding essay

@EconomicsGuy, Allstarecho, DuncanHill, Miranda, and Adolphus79: I've moved the humor essay out of the editable content of the Category:Rouge editors page itself (which might be deleted, given the fate of Category:Rouge admins), into the proper namespace.

I also took the opportunity to edit and expand it, to do the following:

• Align with the tone, intent, and features of WP:Rouge admin.
• Make valid points about differences of editorial approach, instead of just seeming to critical eyes like a WP:NOTHERE pseudo-essay of defiance.
• Provide informative links to various WP policies, guidelines, essays, and articles, in ways that may joggle some thinking.
• Intensify the silly humor a bit, while also making it more focused.

I hope it meets with approval. If not, oh well, I'm a rouge.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I use the LOLcats that Rogue Editors made on my userpage just for fun?

PLZ? I liek the kitteh in teh microwayv (btw the bad spelling is for fun 2) and teh rollbak 1 :) Mapleya (MAY-peel-YUH) (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@MapleTrees16: Sure. Just feed them well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: yay thx Mapleya (MAY-peel-YUH) (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

[Ahem] I think you mean "yay thx bai".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Misleading name

Facepalm This is confusing. I am a Rouge Editor who generally supports the Rouge admins philosophy and approach to countering disruptive editing, yet y'all have hijacked the name "Rouge" to mean something else entirely. Couldn't you come up with your own name? You must have no imagination whatsoever :) - BilCat (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: You're misunderstanding the material, then. I think what you are looking for is {{User rouge wannabe}} (i.e., user who is a rouge admin except doesn't have the admin bit yet). Putting aside the absurdity of having to explain/justify a humor page: the entire point here is to say something different from WP:Rouge admin, from a non-admin, non-admin-wannabe, just-editor perspective. Otherwise, this would simply redirect to that page, and there'd be some sentence there like "Oh, and non-admins can be rouge, too", without further comment.

The central concern of admins is thwarting damage to the encyclopedia and its community by vandals, trolls, and PoV warriors. The central concern of non-admin editors is improving the encyclopedia, despite bureaucratic, trolling, and stonewalling behaviors (i.e., content and behavioral disputes and all the admin-laden WP:DRAMA around them). Both essays humorously make these points by inverting them into absurd "conspiracies" to do what's right, and this later page jacks the silliness up a notch by pretending that these editor and admin goals are somehow at odds, when of course they're aligned (except in the event of "Judge Dredd" admins who are here to act as wannabe cops and are not actually working on the encyclopedia, and the essay strongly hints at that more than once, though exaggeration of this is part of the humor, along with the exaggeration of occasional wikiproject-related OWN problems). The central difference between the philosophies is that rouge adminship is focused on external threats to the community, while rouge editorship is focused on internal impediments to productivity.

Frankly, there are orders of magnitude more rouge editors, as described herein, than there are rouge admins. I think you're also momentarily forgetting that the "rouge" in this a misspelling of "rogue". The idea of a rogue admin (who isn't really rogue, just accused of being that by a bad-acting editor) is necessarily very different from the idea of a rogue editor (who isn't really rogue, just accused of being that by a bad-acting admin or wikiproject wanna-be overlord). It literally is not possible for this page to closely mirror the one about rogue admins. The concepts forked with the second edit to the original category page in February 2008, so you're more than a decade too late to be raising an objection. Heh. PS: The quality of some of the humor in this page is also just plain better, as well as more subtle, than at the admin page.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not misunderstanding the material.l,and I don't want to be an admin, so using {{User rouge wannabe}} would be misleading. I'm an editor who supports and cooperates with rouge admins, which logically means I'm a rouge editor. Just not the kind described here. - BilCat (talk)

Mascara editor, like unto Zorro! I can find a pun anywhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)