Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rouge admin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy kept per rouge application of WP:SNOW by an admin taking his orders from the Secret Cabal Regime of Wikipedia (SCREW). Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Rouge admin

I originally deleted this page outright, but after talking to Lar, we decided that it was best to restore the page and for me to attempt to make some more appropriate changes. I had replaced a misleading banner with the more appropriate "humour" template and removed the words "Islamist" and "Zionist" from a list of political ideologies that failingly atttempts to humourously portray admins as encompassing these ideologies. While I see the humour and irony, I didn't feel that people's religious faiths should be included. My changes were instantly reverted by two users, and I was astonished to see Wikipedians and an administrator willing to engage in what can only be considered as discrimination against minority religions (I use the word minority to reflect a Western perspective. Globally, of course, minority doesn't apply, especially to Islam). This page doesn't belong on Wikipedia, for it misrepresents what an administrator is and further blurs the line between "administrators" and "registered users." While I think the underlying message is important, it gets lost in the inappropriate rhetoric and utter silliness of the page. As such, I feel this page should be deleted and restored to reflect Wikipedia's ideals and not that of a few admins who seem to have gone on a power trip. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The idea of the page may have a point, but the way it lists out a whole lost of "-ists" in a rather derogatory manner does not help it get its point across. Ansell 03:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This is pointless forum shopping. No nomination done on the basis of "I attempted to change two parts of this page and couldn't get consensus, so we should delete the whole thing" is ever going to succeed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I don't really think that you and one other user equals consensus. Furthermore, I'd hope that this being in a more visible forum would help establish a consensus either way. That is, once this is over, consensus will be acheived (hopefully), and we'll have heard what the community has to say, rather than three users edit warring. Furthermore, it'd be great for the discussion if you commented on the merits (or lack thereof) of the page, rather than the nominator/nomination  :) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  This is miscellany for deletion. No decision on editing will be made here. If all you want is to draw more eyes to the page, close this nomination and post a message on Wikipedia:Village pump. As for a rationale for keeping, I'll provide one if you provide a rationale for deletion. Currently you have a rationale for editing, not for deletion. You say "As such, I feel this page should be deleted and restored to reflect Wikipedia's ideals" - unless you feel like doing a complete rewrite, using not a single trace of the previous essay, that's not going to happen. Editing it a certain way then deleting the history of authors up to that point would break the GFDL. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry to confuse you. WP:ROUGE is up for deletion. That is, it should stay deleted permanently if consensus to that effect is reached. I would be fine with the underlying message of adhering to a NPOV, keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedia, etc. etc., but it should be created elsewhere and reflecting an appropriate tone. (i.e. WP:GOODSTUFF or whatever) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The nomination seems to argue that the page does not say what hoopydink wants, so should be deleted. What am I missing? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Tom! Apologies if you inferred that tone from the nomination. I feel that the page is entirely inappropriate and am eager to see what the community response is to the page. The page, as written, goes against fundamental Wikipedia ideals, in my opinion. If the community determines otherwise, then of course I'll have been wrong. I don't want consensus to be determined by me or the few Wikipedians who have recently edited the page, but by the larger community, hence the MfD hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Those folks objecting to Hoopydink should back off a second here -- it is clear he doesn't get the humor, and is thus offended. Becoming offended by his differing sense of humor is of no help to anybody. Suggestion to make the humor clearer, add "Anti-Zionist" right next to "Zionist" and "Anti-Muslim" next to "Islamic". The point is that admins get accused of being every name in the book, so no one side in any conflict should be listed alone (eg., "pro-choicer" next to "pro-lifer", etc.) This is why the page isn't offensive, to those who do grasp the humor. By the way, it is no bad reflection on Hoopydink that his sense of humor doesn't grasp this -- I've never understood Adam Sandler movies, myself. De gustibus non disputandum. Xoloz 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The page does not divide users and administrators, or support abuse of admin tools, because the point of the page is that there is actually no such thing as a rouge admin. The only people it pokes fun at are those with MPOVs, and I don't think anyone's arguing we should delete pages to protect their feelings. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  It's a bit hypocritical to state that the page pokes fun at those who have POV's when you clearly have a POV that Islam is some sort of evil entity. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Please withdraw that statement. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Did I misinterpret this edit, where you grouped Islam with cowardice, fascism, communism, etc.? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, of course you did. I've no problem with you trying to edit or delete this article but I will not have you claiming that I or anyone else are Islamophobic or anti-Semitic with no credible basis. Civility is not optional. I'm asking you again to withdraw that statement. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I completely agree that civility is not optional. Ergo, please revert the edit in which you pigeonholed millions of people's religious faiths'. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  In the case that the edit was misunderstood, what was your rationale for putting "Islamist" and "Zionist" back into the list. Ansell 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I already explained it here - I would prefer to keep this discussion focused on deletion. Hoopydink, I'm amazed and disturbed that you think that is conduct becoming of an administrator to be accusing people of being Islamophobic on such flimsy grounds. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  That is not an aedequate response at all and the fact that you cannot see how it is offensive is blatant ignorance on your part. I apologise if the language seems harsh, but it's beyond me how you cannot realise how it is offensive. In the same vein of your response, I would actually expect an administrator such as yourself to know better hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  If it wasn't an adequate response, then why was your response - up until the point you decided to call me a bigot - "I think that we both have rather different opinions of what constitutes appropriateness", which sounded to me like "we agree to disagree"? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I don't feel you actually explained it there. You made it clear it was not racism, however, you did not back up your "no idea how" statement with any factual evidence. Just because you see something as totally obvious does not mean it actually is obvious, or non-offensive to others. Try and think about the community here. And yes, this should be focused on the deletion discussion, but it is hard given your view that the page should be an obvious keep with no discussion of the underlying offensive statements or offensive views given by the page in general. Ansell 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I repeat - "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. This seems iron-clad to me, and no-one's disputed it yet. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I do not see why the page needs to poke fun at all. It is afterall an essay in Good faith, right? Ansell 04:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  It's an essay which points out the flaws in a common complaint in a humourous way. You say tomayto. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Seing the page is made up for new users, it should actually be intelligible to them. If it is not intelligible to them, and they read the page literally, as opposed to sarcastically, then they are sure to be offended and not get the point. Even with my experience on wikipedia, I still do not get just how funny this page must be for its creators, I still just see the page as a weird sarcastic attempt at bypassing the Civility and No Personal Attack policies. Ansell 04:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Sarchasm: the gulf in understanding between the author of this page and the person nominating it for deletion. The purpose of this article is to help us laugh instead of getting stressed by the routine and baseless asserions of bias which underpin so many POV-pushers' complaints. We delete an article on - oh, I don't know, say incontrovertible scientific proof that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is literally correct, and we are immediately accused of being evil rouge admins (and yes, the mis-spelling is very common in these diatribes) acting out of bias, zionist/islamist/christian fundamentalist/humanist/whatever bigotry. Any admin who takes on these POV-pushers, people who see things entirtely in black and white and any dissenting view as being founded wholly in support for some external warring party, will usually realise where this is coming from. And maybe, just maybe, for some of these users the penny will drop. Hopefully before they start climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Guy 11:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe the page should be revamped so that it actually does not divide users and assumes good faith in new users. The extreme/total sarcasm that the page is based around hardly justifies the page as a means to the MPOV end. Currently the only leg the page has to stand on is that hopefully readers notice that the page is a complete sarcasm rant and that admins who choose to join the existing category are doing so in total fun and in no way affecting the operation of the encyclopedia. Ansell 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not censored for protection of morons (© Calton, but since released under GFDL, I'll reuse it here). To clarify: I'm not trying to insult you or anyone here, but just replying to the hint to the "readers that hopefully notice this page is a complete sarcasm". Whoever doesn't get it... Duja► 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Maybe the page should be revamped so that it actually does not divide users and assumes good faith in new users. Except the whole point of the page is that it's pointing out that people make silly assumptions. Assuming good faith is a good policy, but the policy even admits to having limits. If everyone always acted in good faith, then there would be no need to have policy pages like WP:NPOV or WP:VAND. Changing the page in such a way might as well call for deletion - and starting up a similar page under a different name. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  I guess if a bunch of experienced editors see the page as humourous it is bound to be seen that way by newbies, considering most of the minor edits to wikipedia are made by newbiews. I do disagree that WP:NPOV would not be needed if everyone edited in good faith, the two are orthogonal to each other and both support the process so that if one was removed, the other would not function correctly. Ansell 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I do not understand the rationale for deletion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's pretty clearly a joke and we've been keeping these, WP:SPIDER for example. If there's a problem with some of the content it can be worked out on the talk page. I don't think deletion is a great way to fix content (from nomination: ...deleted and restored to reflect Wikipedia's ideals). There must be a way to satisfiy everyone's concerns. Rx StrangeLove 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Yeah, but WP:NCR is actually funny. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 07:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy. In a perfect world, this would be Keep, but it's just not worth having edit wars and quarrels repeatedly break out over a humor essay. From something he's written in recently in a completely different context, I believe this may be acceptable to the primary author of the page as well. Newyorkbrad 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously... this is a humor page but it makes an important point. I tire of people trying to nibble away at this, the image, the category, this page, and so on. I support trying to change it to make it funnier and to make it more on target but not outright deletion, no. ++Lar: t/c 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Are the constant nibblings reflective of the fact that there are more than a small number of people who do not see the page as actually homourous right now. If the page is not being taken as a humourous essay as the keep votes here presuppose, rather it is being taken as a divisive us vs. them essay, is it actually able to target the desired users at all? Ansell 06:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undecided If the games sections ect. from the Esperanza Coffee Lounge got deleted, then why not this? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 07:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's a bit of a different issue. I don't think that all "off-topic" or "fun" pages should be deleted. There is a grey area, and humor is usually in that area (not saying if I support keep or delete, since I'm still thinking about it). For one, it usually makes more sense for a humor page of this nature to be on Wikipedia rather than off-site. The games, on the other hand, were noted that they'd likely retain their purpose (stress relief, fun, community building) off-site, which was desirable for a number of reasons. The games also were not desirable because they spawned lots of game archives and sub pages. There are other reasons why the two are different, but you get the basic idea. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - irony is a powerful weapon and this article makes its point, to those who "get it", so much better than would a bland statement of of policy. It is surely so clear that quoting various groups as targets for abuse is actually a strong condemnation of such abuse. Also by including many such groups the point is made that abusing people because they are, or are not, members of a cetain race or religiuos grouping is ridiculous because we are all members of one group or another. Oh, and it's well written and funny ... the day I discovered this page my view of the human race was improved. Abtract 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and I wish there were more humorous (yet to-the-point) pages like this. I also support this suggestion by Xoloz! •NikoSilver• 11:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - both humorous and serious - a great page. And the SCREW tag is one of the best parts.--Aldux 12:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it is both funny and serious, and does also make a point that it is very possible for us to take ourselves too seriously, something we should all be reminded of once in a while. Badbilltucker 14:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Life (and Wikipedia) shouldn't be taken too seriously. Whoever doesn't understand that this is a joke... <violation of WP:CIVIL suppressed>. Duja► 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW this is a humour page that is widely cited and enjoyed by Wikipedians. As such it is perfectly reasonable in the project space. A content dispute is not grounds for deletion. Eluchil404 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely Keep per Aldux. Wikipedia has a long history of using simple yet direct humor to get an important point across, and it works quite well. See WP:NFT and m:Don't be a dick. Most everyone fits into one category or another (including at least one stinging term that might apply to myself - it shall remain unnamed) - so why should anyone get offended? And if they are: to be quite frank, they have a thin skin, and would probably be offended by a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia that's policy (e.g., Wikipedia is not censored, etc.). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just a bit of humor to sweeten up Wikipedia life CharonX/talk 02:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Extremely flimsy, and to be honest, quite unconvincing rationale for deletion. The point is, we get accused of being anything. Clarify that in the page iff needed (which I personally don't think it is). Titoxd^(?!?) 03:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - whyever would you want to delete it? It's funny, and it doesn't harm anyone. The underlying message is also an important one. --Karafias ^{Talk • Contributions} 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not even that outrageous a satire, given the things you see some users say. JChap2007 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• What? Hoopydink deleted this? ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Which is where we came in... Guy 10:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Humour is useful on Wikipedia. Humour that appears to advocate division of the Wikipedia community, and abuse of the community by certain of its members, is not useful. Cynical 12:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, humour, nothing offensive. We need some humour on this encyclopedia. This is a page for some laughs, yet there's a bit of seriousness here. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unless you dare to take WP:BJAODN and the entire Fun Department along wth it. Misza13 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• I require a line by line analysis of the essay with detailed descriptions of how each element interacts humorously. Please provide citations that clearly document the humor quotient, and make sure they meet the project's strict requirements for notabil- oh for pete's sake. Keep. Deleting something because you don't think it's funny and you think it might offend someone is just silly. Humor and offense are linked at the hips, and even if you think WP should adopt a 'no humor' standpoint, there's plenty of 'Wikipedia is not censored for X' precedent set that trumps that. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and send round a fresh batch of humour to the sadly-impaired induhviduals who cannot see this for what it is. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:44, 14 November 2006 (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.