Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rouge admin (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Acalamari 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Rouge admin

Useless page that serves no purpose, a similar category has already led to massive drama and this will no doubt be next. Alexfusco⁵ 16:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It doesn't convey any information, Wikipedia should contain info. And by the way, is not that funny either... -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as mean-spirited joke. So in the early days of Wikipedia someone had imperfect typing or English language skills. So let's all mock this user continuously for years on end for not knowing how to spell an unfamiliar word! I'm all for being mean if it's somehow instructive or thought-provoking, but this isn't even particularly funny.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's humour, it's useful to understanding. Above two opinions are ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If my opinions are so ridiculous, perhaps you should create a "humorous" essay so that the community can all join in on the ridicule; this is the sort of page you're defending. Actually, I'm not even opposed to that idea; ridiculing someone for his opinions makes more sense than heaping abuse on an inexperienced editor for poor typing skills. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to WP:DICK per nom and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Gerard, I doubt anyone expected you to think otherwise. Hence the whole issue. Changed to keep since the category was deleted and some of the more civil keeps below make sense. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Whereas categories must serve an actual function in order to be kept, pages do not. There are many pages on Wikipedia that are kept around for purely humorous purposes. As long as there's a big notice that keeps that fact clear, and no one takes the page seriously, I see no problem with it. If this nomination was based on the trouble we experienced with the category, I don't think there's any reason to assume the page would cause the same trouble. And if it eventually does, we can wait until that actually happens before we consider deleting it. The whole "Rouge" thing has been a long-standing joke at Wikipedia, and there's no reason we need to completely obliterate all traces of it just because the existence of the category caused problems. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:09, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm as much for humor as most (and more), but the Fat Man hits it on the nail. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I concur with Equazcion. It's not offensive, and doesn't cause problems, therefore, it causes no harm to the encyclopedia to keep it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's caused quite a few problems, actually. Also, I find it a bit offensive; see my comment above. And for those who are inclined to start slinging alphabet soup, My argument for delete is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's more WP:NICE.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The category has caused problems, sure. The page, not so much. How is gently poking fun at the misspelling of "rogue" as "rouge" offensive? I think it's a good thing for admins to be able to blow off a little steam; it can be a bit stressful at times, and it's much, much better to have our admins blowing off steam at a humor page then by yelling at/blocking/biting newbies, yes? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm sure we did this before. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While I agree it should be kept, this really is no argument. A previous keep alone is not a reason to keep again. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:29, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)
    • Not if there was a valid reason to keep it last time. I think you can take it I mean per the consensus of the previous discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It explains what a Rouge admin. is to people who don't know about them, and even though it should probably on a different site, like EncyclopediaDrmatica, i think we should keep it. User:spazzoo 17:27, 16 February 2008
• Keep No valid reason to delete has been given other than it might be mocking someone who can't spell, and I doubt that is the intent or result of the page. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I can't wait until we nominate every page that cast a bit of fun to this place. I don't get how this page is mocking someone in particular? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional keep iff Category:Rouge admins is deleted. User:Dorftrottel 18:11, February 16, 2008
  • Condition fulfilled. User:Dorftrottel 03:29, February 18, 2008
• Keep. Having all the existing links to WP:ROUGE become suddenly rouge-looking would be just too much of the irony. Seriously though, the term and the concept behind it, like it or not, have become an entrenched part of Wikipedia culture, and people need something you can point them to to explain it. Of course, we could have a much more serious-sounding page instead. "In Wikipedia jargon, rouge admin is sometimes used as a semi-humorous term for an administrator who...". With sections about "etymology", "first attestation", "differences of usage", "basis in policy", and "controversy". Bleh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow. Anyone hear of satire? bibliomaniac15 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we are stupid and ridiculous and lack sense of humor. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And we don't wash ourselves. User:Dorftrottel 19:00, February 16, 2008

And our mouths stink. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And we don't know the difference between satire and sarcasm. User:Dorftrottel 20:03, February 16, 2008

• Conditional keep per Dorftroffel. EJF (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Absolutely no reason to delete this. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There has been drama about the category and that should be deleted, but there is no reason to suppose there will be drama about this and no reason to delete it. --Bduke (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This conveys an important concept, via the use of humor. It's not pure humor, it's more than just that. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• The page did not lead to a massive amount of drama, a bunch of drama queens who have no sense of perspective led to a massive amount of drama. Keep the page, delete the idiots. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As with Gerard I don't think anyone expected anything civil from you but please do try not to enforce negative stereotypes. That sort of behavior has a tendency to bite itself as you should now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason as the category. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• The category and the Project page, clearly marked as humor, are a world apart; there is no good reason to get rid of this page (to say that something marked as official by WP:SCREW is not pure humor though, stretches credulity and argues against keeping the page).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Fellas, it's a joke... Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A mean and unfunny one.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you'll be defeated by the cabal of unfunny admins who think they are damn funny. At most this is a bad note for admins who link to it, is not like we should feel ashamed by the bad taste of other people... -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Humor is subjective, and not finding something funny is not a reason for deletion. If it were, I'd have deleted every aspect of WP:BJAODN as my first act as an admin. I'd also have deleted WP:ROUGE, as I don't find it funny either. However, others do, and there is no reason to scrub Wikipedia of every aspect of the community that isn't 100% directly related to encyclopedia building. - auburnpilot talk 06:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be patronizing. I said it's mean foremost and unfunny besides. Not being mean is one of the core, non-negotiable principles of the project.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"and there is no reason to scrub Wikipedia of every aspect of the community that isn't 100% directly related to encyclopedia building." -- I actually wonder about this issue, since my reason for deleting the article has little to do with the fact that I consider it poor humor, it's mostly that it doesn't covey any info, I am not sure what's the rule here, can we have irrelevant pages on Wikipedia that don't say anything? Can I create random humor pages? Before you say that this is related to Wikipedia, believe me I can create enough "funny" content about admins, editors, vandals, etc, but should I (or anybody else) be allowed? My bet is that any such page that I would start would be deleted in less than 24 hours. Am I wrong? -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Fat Man: There is nothing patronizing about my comments, and I disagree that this essay is "mean". Frankly, anybody who is hurt by reading this essay needs some thicker skin. AdrianTM: Yes, you are wrong; see Category:Wikipedia essays and Category:User essays for hundreds of user created essays. Some are meant to be funny, others are meant to be serious, and others really don't have any point at all. There's also Category:Wikipedia humor, which seems to contain a bit of everything. There are probably some that need to be removed (those with no point at all), but essays and pages meant to be humorous (especially those in user space) are usually given quite a bit of leeway. - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author." Then why is not in userspace? I think there's a big difference between having crap in userspace and having crap that looks like official Wikipedia stuff. -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Very different from the category situation, which since then I've concluded is a problem that is illrelevant to the category being used. As in, the same situation could have happened with just about any user category. Even if the category was actually a problem, it wouldn't be one that could be applied to a page like this. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all Rouge Admin!!! Seriously though, Keep. This is illustrative of a part of Wikipedia culture at best, and harmless at worst. -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep "Useless" and "related things caused drama" (what doesn't these days?) are poor reasons for deletion. Mr.Z-man 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yeah, people seem to be taking a pretty heavy-handed approach to dealing with "drama." It actually rewards the drama queens in many cases. Ron Duvall (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A humourous page but conveys a very important message to users. Seddon69 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - but solely as an essay. Both for historical reasons, and due to quite a few other examples. Current convention would seem to allow such essays, so no reason to discriminate against this one. That said, if there is overwhelming concensus, I would weakly support userfication to User:David Gerard/Rouge admin. (Apparently the page creator.) - jc37 00:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  Upon further investigation it seems that DG created the page as a humourous redirect. Apparently User:JzG actually started the essay. So I guess User:JzG/Rouge admin might be more appropriate. - jc37 00:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed it should be treated as a humorous essay.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep... is this really necessary? Ral315 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Lar. The category was appropriately deleted, but this is just fine; I don't even think it needs to be userfied. There are humorous pages that do indeed tell a bit of the story of this community, and this is one of them. Risker (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - no reason at all to delete this.   jj137 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written and funny. Does not make fun of spelling, typing, or English use; makes fun of people who don't follow Wikipedia's core policies. TomTheHand (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; else delete the WP:BRC as well. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 03:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as the category has been deleted. It's humor, is marked as such, and anyone who doesn't understand that it's humor doesn't have enough intelligence to be editing Wikipedia anyway. I also agree with most of the more verbose keep opinions above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. No humor essays, No humor allowed, eh, Fusco? How exactly DO you envision this community built free encyclopedia working, eh? Will you next insist on us punching virtual time-cards to show we've put in a satisfactory amount of time for the week? or quarterly performance reviews? This isn't a job, Fusco. You got your way with the category. What's next? WP:TROUT? Wikipedia:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spider-Man? WP:PLOT? WP:NPA? because, when that one goes, whooo, the fun will begin. ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean WP:NPA isn't a humour page? Risker (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Category should have been kept too, but I missed the debate. It's a funny page which is also quite serious, underneath. For a hint at its serious purpose, go back and re-read WP:IAR. Antandrus (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I...doubt this offends anyone, really. Anyways, unlike the category, this page is useful - because it can point out two important things: 1) Wikipedia is not that damned serious and 2) Admins have nonetheless probably heard every angry rant there is, and been called whatever you can think of. Like "climbing the Reichstag," it's a parable that helps people get a grip. --TheOtherBob 06:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Hmm... It looks like it could be snowing : ) - jc37 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd let it run nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 12:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Aww, I was kinda hoping to see a rouge-like speedy-close, just for sheer poetic value... -- RoninBK _{T C} 12:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • If it will make you feel better consider the potential rouge ness of forcing something to stay open when the answer's clear :) ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. We have to have some traditions somewhere... --BozMo talk 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Commenting on the validity of the argument without inferring a judgment of my own either way, I'd say that you're actually making the value judgment of saying we should document some traditions. Tradition and its written documentation are two entirely different things. User:Dorftrottel 18:39, February 18, 2008
• Keep. While I was not thrilled to see the cat deleted from my user page, I am less amused by this deletion nomination. I'd like to think this Project will not be reduced to the lowest common denominator of bland, non-offensive taste --lest we introduce the Beige Admins. --Bobak (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Humour is good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Close per WP:SNOW obviously. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Lar. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per good humour. No valid reason to delete, and the category should be kept too. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep Humorous and manages to make a variety of half-way serious points as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Rouge Admin Cabal. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per various above reasonings. I wonder if I am rouge enough... --Merovingian (T, C) 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.