Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin

This page was nominated for deletion on November 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Welcome to the discussion

[[:|WT:ROUGE]]

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)[reply]

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

move to meta

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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^ask 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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 (U T C)

Must have been a local problem; it's working again now. --ais523 12:53, 30 June 2006 (U T C)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- You put that very precisely, I think. -Splash - tk 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (U T C)

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Whatever

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[TINC]

>>subject<<

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