Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin/Former category talk page

This category was nominated for deletion on 23 November 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on December 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on February 13, 2008. The result of the discussion was Delete.

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.

I don't get it. Is this a joke?

No. Hedley 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure it's not a joke? --Imperialles 12:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for me, this category is not funny for non-admins at all. Most of all, presence of some non-Western admins here is a very bad blasphemous joke. Well, may be videogame geeks and their admins have a special sense of humor... unfit for a global encyclopedia that is becoming a cited sourceAlexPU 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this meant admins with a heavy Revlon and Wet n' Wild habit. I am so disappointed, nothing to look forward too.Noirdame 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to change the picture. Rouge goes on the cheek, not the eyelid. Durova 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a unique solution. Just change the name! Slowmover 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like this [1] Slowmover 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE. It's spelled rogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossad Agent (talk • contribs)

Uh, he's right. —Whomp t/c 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The misspelling is some kind of lame joke. Anomo 02:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is that a significant number of trolls and problem users who accused administrators of being 'rogue' couldn't actually spell 'rogue', instead using 'rouge'. Ral315 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image accuracy

Your image shows eyeshadow rather than rouge. Is that part of the joke? Durova 04:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. —Nightst a llion (?) 19:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAR

Since no-one was noticing my adminiship, no doubt due to an embarrassing lack of the right sort of activity, when getting a bit more into vandalwhacking I decided to up my profile a bit by awarding myself rougiosity. No doubt it's against the rules, but then..... dave souza, talk 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roué admins

Why not move it to Category:Roué admins? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.244 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfunny joke at someone else's expense?

This will sound vaguely hypocritical coming from the king of unfunny wikijokes, but I have suspicions about the origin of this irritating category. My imagined narrative is thus:

A poor editor in the early days of the Wikipedia feels wronged by the actions and tone of an aggressive administrator; said user, who is a poor speller or poor typist--or even a non-native English speaker--attempts to air his or her grievance, complaining about the "rouge admins" that run this site. Instead of responding to this user's concerns, other administrators mercilessly mocked the editor for the malapropism.

Honestly, I don't think that's very cool, and I would like to know which editor(s) you are mocking. This reminds me of the way radio personality Howard Stern has continuously bullied and made fun of his producer Gary Dell'Abate for incorrectly referring to the cartoon character Baba Looey as "Baba Booey" once, more than a decade ago. You should all be de-sysoped. Thank you for your time.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

This category is non-encyclopædic, not to be taken seriously and does not aid or improve collaboration. It is kept because it is seen by some as humourous. I propose, in the interests of clarity, that it be removed from Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination, as its inclusion there may lead some to wrongly assume that it is meant to be taken seriously. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours ago I would have said that I don't think that's at all a good idea but after today, maybe it is. Part of the issue is that this category and the accompanying essay are meant to be funny AND taken seriously, but both at the same time, rather zenlike in some ways. The essay has a serious message about how those not here to write an encyclopedia, but rather to push their pet hobbyhorse (be it their band, site, company, ethnic disagreement, wacky scientific theory, political view, whatever) sometimes complain about how we're stopping them from getting the truth out, and in the process take up a lot of time, and admins should not be swayed by that but rather do the right thing. That message is (attempted to be) delivered with ironic humor. Although perhaps not very effectively any more, it seems no one gets the joke, or the zen nature. If it's no longer a badge of honor to be in this category the way it once was, if it's now just something that random people should be allowed to join as a joke, then maybe the first step is to take it out of the serious administrative supercat it's in, (by being there, it got a user to dig in his/her heels inappropriately to the point of getting blocked), followed by a reexamination of whether the category (as a category) should be kept around at all. Ditto for Eguor and for troutslapping as well, I suppose. The essays maybe can remain or maybe they too should go. WP isn't the same place it used to be, for better or worse. Better in some ways, worse in others. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my experience that humour (especially the dry or ironic type intended to convey a serious point) gets people blocked, and user cats that don't have "this is to promote collaboration" plastered all over them as well as an accompanying deadly dull essay on how they promote collaboration get deleted, regardless of whether the people who actually use the cats find them collaborative. The exceptions to this seem to be admin usercats. That this gets some editors a tad tetchy is, I would respectfully submit, inevitable. DuncanHill (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.