Hosta

• I don't believe such a "campaign" is a factor here. I certainly don't believe that all admins are idiots or anything like that. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I know - as I said, Ned, I don't include you in this. Your nom is reasonable under the circumstances, but I would hope that disruption by editors isn't a reason to delete, not because it's particularly important, but purely for the slippery slope factor. Black Kite 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One bad incident doesn't mean the category is bad, it means one user and one administrator each had poor judgment. Ral315 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor judgment related to this affair abounded and continues to abound. By no means is it limited to one user and one administrator. Mike R (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Creates cabalism = Gone. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ral315. One pointy attempt to suck the fun out of the project shouldn't spoil it for others. GlassCobra 07:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Baby, bathwater, hive of deadly bees, per Black Kite and Ral315. Just because someone who wasn't an admin added himself to it to make a point, and was subsequently blocked for it, is no reason to delete it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Making a point isn't blockable, disrupting to make a point is, but we don't really have any evidence of that (and no, the disruption caused by the anticipation of disruption doesn't count). The fact remains that someone got blocked for using a humor category, and that should be a big WTF to anyone. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes someone got blocked for using a humor category. That someone is currently not an admin, yet the category has "admin" in its name. While it's not like he put Category:Wikipedia administrators onto his user page, he is inadvertantly implying that he is an admin, when he is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Next thing you know people will assume the Rouge part means something too! Oh noes! -- Ned Scott 08:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia does not need admin only fun clubs where admins laugh at the scum aka regular editors and boast about breaking the rules by writing stuff like "Rouge admins firmly believe that adminship is a trophy, and will block anyone who states otherwise." Extremely divisive and offensive, it sucks the fun out of the project for anyone not part of the club. -Lapinmies 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • well now wait a second, I don't think any of the admins listed in this cat think that way. User:John, the blocking admin, is not in this cat. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The implication clearly is that these admins don't care about the rules or the rights of the editors and I find this outrageous. Just click on the link to the rougelike game and it tells you what it means to be a rouge admin "Your character is a "rouge" admin, and you must commit as many outrageous actions as possible before you'll get forced out of Wikipedia." I understand that this is supposed to be a joke, but it is very offensive and divisive. -Lapinmies 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the same grounds that the humor cat Category:Gayass Wikipedians was slaughtered and on the grounds that admins don't look good in drag anyway. I mean, "rouge" is makeup, isn't it?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not the same thing at all, but personally I would've kept Category:Gayass Wikipedians. And I look terrible in drag. Black Kite 09:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Omg drama. Omg no sense of humour. Omg omg omg. The justification for this MFD is effectively "It's not fair because non-admins can't be in a category that is specifically for admins" - just read that a few times and realise how silly it really is. Equazcion didn't solely get blocked for using the category, he got blocked for being a dick about it when asked reasonably to remove a category from his userpage that identified the subject as an admin, and commenced a lame edit war. I wouldn't have gone for a 24 hour block (maybe a 24 second one), but I can see why it was imposed. Neıl ☎ 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge to Rouge Wikipedians since anything else would be pointy considering I created Category:Rouge editors. Both admins and those who don't want adminship need to blow off steam sometimes and humor is the best way to do that. We now have two such categories, one for each group, and as long as we can keep it humorous and not take ourselves too seriously without losing focus on our primary task here this can work out. I think this has been blown way out of proportion. As for Category:Gayass Wikipedians I didn't approve of that deletion (mildly speaking) and there were more serious issues at stake there. I don't think we should compare the two. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 1

• Comment - please see this ANI diff and this cat_talk diff I am afraid that many people apparently don't get the joke, or don't get how the joke makes a serious point. It used to be a badge of honor to have a fellow admin put you in this category (that's how it worked, you didn't put yourself in it, someone else did it) for some particularly astute comment, protection, or block that helped stem the tide of single purpose accounts and their POVish articles. Now the category is something that at least 34 non admins think is funny to be in, for some reason. If the category can't achieve the goal it was created for, perhaps its time has passed. Perhaps it's fixable. Perhaps removing it from the administrative supercat it is in (Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination) would be sufficient. Perhaps the cat has to go but the essay could stay. Perhaps they both have to go. I don't quite know any more. It's no longer the same category. WP is no longer the same place, for good or ill, as it was when the category was created. I agree with Black Kite that disruption by editors isn't a reason to delete per se, but it is symptomatic of misalignment. ++Lar: t/c 11:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that four, the nominator also felt it funny/important to add himself to the category. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have no problem with the essay; I have no problem with the userbox; my problem is with the user category, which serves no purpose (why would anyone need to search for "rouge" admins) and is divisive (an admin-only humor category certainly refutes the claim that adminship is not a trophy, and the fact that several editors' userpages were edited by others to remove the category to maintain its purity only makes it worse). For those who point to Category:Rouge editors, please note the date stamp on that category, which was created all of two minutes before Equazcion was blocked, and is equally pointless. Neither category serves a purpose, and I would propose deleting both of them, along with Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping and Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, which also serve no purpose. There are some admin-only categories that are useful and appropriate (Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests, and maybe Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall), but the other categories (especially the allegedly humorous ones) don't have any real function. Just as Category:Well endowed Wikipedians was (properly) deleted (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 22#Category:Well endowed Wikipedians), Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians who defy categorisation resulted in nuking another joke category, and I could cite over a dozen more. Retaining this category is a net detriment to the project. Horologium (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per sound reasoning by the nominator and the !voter above mine. This is not harmless humour. When admins don't understand the essentially humourous purpose of the cat. and perform bad blocks on user(s) in good standing of the community, then the existence of such category is evidently harmful. We don't reserve aimless humor at the expense of wiki drama. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, this particular user is only "sort of" in good standing, as it were, as the user has a (mild) history of 3RR issues and the way they started the discussion at this talk page suggests they possibly knew they were going to possibly cause disruption before they started. Also, the thread right above the removal thread on their user talk page is a warning about possible 3RR violation. But ya, there is something to the theory that if a joke isn't working, stop making it. That's especially true for ones that depend heavily on irony or sarcasm, or reverse psychology or the like. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Neil. Kusma (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nominator's own statement "it's clear that most of us don't want to see this category get deleted". This is not the best place to get clarification on the use of a category or to discuss the appropriateness of a block. If a non-admin's ego is so fragile he or she can't handle not being in the rouge admin category, s/he can be added to Category:Rouge editors. ThuranX said it best, here. - auburnpilot talk 13:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- There are now two "Rouge" categories (see just above). there are also editors who will never get added to either category, nor wish to get involved. How about renaming if possible as Category:Admins/Rouge or Category:Administrators (rouge)? Newbyguesses - Talk 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 2

• Strong delete. This category's only function is to ridicule the notion of some admins being actually rogue. I wouldn't mind the honest Category:Rogue admins, but this category here is needlessly inflammatory. Delete, and open the overdue MfD on Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Any efforts to suppress criticism, however far-fetched it may be, serve no collaborative purpose, but indeed actively hinder it. User:Dorftrottel 13:23, February 13, 2008
• Keep. Why not? Non admins can't be a member? I can't be a member of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, because it says that it is for people who are not already admins. I don't go and add myself to it and refuse to remove the category. There's no reason to delete this, at all, and no, I am not, and never have been, within this category. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but admins to get over it and get a sense of humour and proportion and stop wasting everyone's time with blocks for unlicenced jokes on userpages, and while we're at it why not apply the same standards on all CfDs not just admin ones eh?. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I could empty quote an opinion, I would. --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I didn't have any problem with this category when I was under the impression that it actually was intended purely as a joke. However my recent block, which resulted from adding myself to this supposedly joke category, has changed my mind. As User:Wikidemo pointed out, "[If] the category itself is a joke, ... it's fair game for all (an administrator-only joke area does not seem to be in the spirit of the project)..." If it's a joke, then by definition it's a joke that anyone should be able to partake in. If it's at all not a joke, it should be deleted. Even if there is some humorous reason to keep it around, the amount of divisiveness and controversy it has created is reason enough to get rid of it. It's fine to keep a joke around as long as it doesn't cause any harm and no one takes it remotely seriously, but since that doesn't seem to be the case and it's causing all this mess, with this being its third CfD, it's time for it to go. There's no compelling reason to keep a joke around if it causes this much trouble. Furthermore, categories that exist for humorous purposes only get deleted by the truckload every day, for the reason that they don't aid in encyclopedic collaboration. It never matter that they're "just jokes". If they don't help people write the encyclopedia, they get deleted. That reason surely applies to this category. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:44, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC) (copied over from usertalk by DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Strong big fucking waste of time. This won't be deleted, period. Someone might as well close it now, so it can go to DRV and get endorsed. The admins want their toys, the admins will have their toys. --Kbdank71 14:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit-conflicted Keep - The community deserves the ability to laugh at itself. Equazcion, I'm sorry you got blocked for re-adding yourself, but it is what it is and I think the block was justified. Common sense tells non-admins not to put {{administrator}} on our user page or try and join the bathrobe cabal--common sense can (and has, until now) tell non-admins not to join categories created for admins. As for concerns that this is creating a special club or group out of admins...well, it seems to me that becoming an admin kind of puts you in a separate group anyway. --jonny-mt 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Jonny-mt's ≠vote which would be all very well if admins didn't keep claiming to be just ordinary editors with a mop. Why can't they just come out with it and say "we're special - you aren't, we get to have our own clubs which you proles can't join". DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to DuncanHill: I thought it'd be obvious based upon the block and this cfd, but maybe not. So here you go: we're special - you aren't, we get to have our own clubs which you proles can't join. --Kbdank71 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is obvious - but a little more upfront honesty about it is kinda cool! For proles, read 1984. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, jonny, the BRC is now open to all comers. :) GlassCobra 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great! Now all I need is a bathrobe and a smile. I mean, I only have one and not the other, but I'm sure I can improvise.... --jonny-mt 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 3

• Delete Per WP:DEAL if its a joke category then anyone can join being an admin does not grant special status to participate in a joke. If the worry is that a Wikipedian may think that a user is an admin because they are in this category then the same Wikipedian may think the admin is rogue and will question the whole process. A joke stops being funny when people are hurt by it and the pain is obvious at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of User:Equazcion. There are no possible benifits to the Wikipedia project in the Category:Rouge admins Jeepday (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per What wikipedia is not! Does nothing to make the encyclopedia better yet it has proven itself to be disruptive to the working of this project so must be deleted. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per statements made above - Epousesquecido (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The whole thing's silly and harmless. Orderinchaos 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Equazcion finds it too funny anymore. Turns out humor is serious business. — Save_Us † 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedian Rouge Admins. No opinion on the category's existence otherwise. —Random832 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - this is why I love wikipedia. The inability to understand a joke/bit of humor and the dhrahma that comes from it....priceless. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a joke has got loads of categories deleted, why not this one? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an admin category. --Kbdank71 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Horologium and Hypnosadist. Mike R (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Must we eviscerate every facet of our community? RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Weak delete in spite of nominator's manifest "process wankery" and multiple WP:POINT violations. Also per in spite of "I think it's clear that most of us don't want to see this category get deleted". While I could not care less long term whether this category is deleted (it is debatable whether it does any good to the project), it has existed a long time and I am very loath to delete it in this way, at this time, to suit those who do not appreciate that Wikipedia is not an experiment in social organization. --John (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, this is not a good reason to keep, so I have changed my mind, mainly per Lar and Tony. We move on. --John (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not finding it funny anymore is not a valid deletion criteria. Is there some point to filing this CFD? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Rouge editors. Categories meant to used for humor become unfunny when legitimate editors are blocked by administrators who get overzealous with their tools. — Save_Us † 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Good lord, has anyone made a plausible case on why categories based on wiki philosophies are harmful? I still haven't seen it, yet people are spending all kinds of time trying to delete this stuff. It seems like every time I turn around, yet another similar user category is being listed here. Why? Friday (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!

a)Reduces good faith; both on behalf of the rouge admin and on the person seeing that an admin is rouge.

b)Wikipedia is not a comedy club its an encyclopedia.

c)It can be viewed as insulting.

d)It is disruptive yet serves no purpose in aiding the creation of wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Maybe because of that big purple box that claims it's humor, and yet someone got blocked because of this so-called humor. Maybe because by blocking, admins just told everyone loud and clear that we are above the proles, and don't you dare screw with our joke. Or maybe it's because we aren't above the proles, and we should stop acting like we are. Just a few guesses. --Kbdank71 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no. They got blocked because of the blue box (the one that says this is a category used for administration, the one that points out that the cat is a subcat of the supercat that collects the admin only categories), not the purple one. You seem to be polemicising and that may not be the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never had a problem with this category until User:Equazcion got blocked. I thought it was harmless and funny. But it's clear that the point of the joke, zenlike or not, is being missed by both admins and non-admins, and it either needs to be reworked or removed. And considering the vast majority of people here are firmly in the keep or delete camps, reworking it probably isn't going to work. Am I polimicising? Perhaps. I'm amazed this mess got this far over a joke (because it doesn't matter how many blue boxes you add to the category, the purple one still says it's humor). --Kbdank71 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I may be being thick, but I can't see a blue box which points out that the cat is a subcat of the supercat that collects the admin only categories. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, the blue box only says it's used for administration (not admins). I believe Lar may be referring to Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination, which Rouge admins is in. --Kbdank71 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I thought that that is what the blue box actually says. Clearly, not me being thick then. Good, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 4

• Delete per Dorftrottel and others. This goes beyond being a harmless joke. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - what we're doing here is taking all the personality out of Wikipedia. Would I have blocked someone for adding themselves to the cat? Nah, it's a weak block and serves no real purpose. But c'mon, things like this are at the heart and soul of Wikipedia. When did we start taking ourselves to seriously that we can't have a little fun around here? - Philippe | Talk 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The block was just unnessesary drama, this is just one of a very few things that admins can use to relax themselves on a busy day. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding themselves to Category:Rouge admins is "just one of a very few things that admins can use to relax themselves on a busy day"? Is that true? Really? Wow, the job must be even lousier than I thought. Mike R (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lovely sarcasm, items found on Category:Wikipedia humor are just one of a very few things that admins can use to relax themselves on a busy day, how does that sound? - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My more subtle point was that it's only the category we're talking about deleting here, not WP:ROUGE or anything else. Mike R (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A joke category? Only if admins use it. If non-admins use it it becomes serious business creating drama, and is a now blockable offense. Divisive. Cabalistic. Stupid. Get rid of it. Captain Infinity (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A related subject is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/Single Letter Group, which was similarly deleted for divisiveness, even though it was in userspace. I have not advocated deleting the essay or the userbox, only the user category. This seems to be yet another precedent that elitism is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as the prime troublemaker over that one, the problem was that the admins in question were repeatedly deleting the page to remove edits which didn't come from non-single-letter users. Levity with admin tools is not good thing. Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good heavens people. Yes, it's something of a joke--for admins. I think it should be plenty obvious to anyone who spends far too much time here that it's isn't cabalish–any category that includes myself Geogre (talk · contribs) and David Gerard (talk · contribs) is by definition inclusive, at least as far as sysops are concerned. Given that the sysop who did the block was himself not in the category, I think it's safe to say that the category is not at fault (poor category!) Moving from the concrete to the abstract, the rouge experience does describe a certain approach and mentality toward adminship, including not taking one's self too seriously, but at the same time treating the project itself with utmost respect and veneration. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why does it need a category? WjBscribe's delete comment over at the SLG MfD very nicely sums up the whole "cabal" concern very nicely, and Pascal Tesson notes some uncomfortable parallels with Esperanza. Both of those concerns extend to this category as well. Horologium (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parallel doesn't follow. In the case of Esperanza and SLG there were demonstrable concerns over cliquish behavior and (especially over Esperanza) empire-building. I'm not aware of any coordinated behavior of people in this category; some of them aren't even on speaking terms at the moment. This is no Esperanza here. Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the "exclusiveness" factor; several peoples' userpages were edited by others to remove what is supposed to be a joke category from their page, and one editor was blocked after rebuffing several admins and returning it to his page. It's hard to call something disruptive when it doesn't violate any policy and is confined to one's own userpage. Horologium (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would happen with any other "admin" category. Non-admins shouldn't be in a category which describes admins by temperament and approach. There's several fallacies here. First of all, it's not confined to his userpage, but rather puts his user page in a category, which misleadingly implies that he's an admin--which he's not. User pages are not supposed to be misleading in such a fashion; non-admins are not supposed to represent themselves as admins and there's plenty of precedent for that. Furthermore, it's against policy to edit-war, even on your own user page, although there's latitude there depending on what's up. Finally, note my original comment--it's something of a joke, but it is not a "joke category" in the sense you describe it. If it were we wouldn't be having this discussion. Exclusive, yes: exclusive to admins. The community recognizes that such a category of user exists, and jealously guards access to it. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Point taken on edit-warring, although he only reverted twice before being blocked. My primary opposition to this category's existence has not been answered, however: Why does it exist? Every time I have asked that question, the answer invariably boils down to "I like it", or "It's funny" or something similar. Nobody has been able to articulate why a category is needed, in addition to the essay and the userbox. Those who assert their rougeness could always sign the manifesto, which would be accomplished by listifying. While I disagree with the philosophy, that is not driving my opposition. I look at this (and the similar trout slapping categories I cited way up there) and cannot understand how these categories serve any purpose at all. I have watched as similar jokey categories (that are not admin-only) have been deleted without a peep from the admins, and then watch as they shriek when it's a sacred cow admin humor category up on the block. When this was discussed in December, I watched a stream of admins stroll through UCFD for the first time (ever, in some cases, in quite a while for others) and discuss only the three admin cats; they didn't participate in any other way, despite the backlog of discussions requiring admin attention (and the backlog notice at the top of the screen). I watched a single admin spend all day closing a mountain of discussions, because only three admins regularly participated at UCFD, and two of them had contributed to or initiated all of the categories. Horologium (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I agree with everything Mackensen says, a joke that people don't get isn't a good joke. A parable that doesn't instruct ins't a good parable. A category that has devolved from a way that admins honor other admins by placing them in it to a butt of jokes by non admins and a source of hard feelings when POINT makers insist on acting out isn't a good category. Wish it weren't so, but I fear that the time when the English Wikipedia was a small enough community that this worked has passed. Will the world end without this category? No. Will the project end? No. Will I go away? No. But still, it is the community that has failed the category, and not the other way round. So then, with regret, Delete. cue The Times They Are a-Changin' ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The times changed a long time ago Lar. They changed when admins started to care more about internal struggles, their own status and selected individual editors rather than responding to the concerns of the community. User:Valentinian, a hugely productive editor, left over a month ago because of the deteriorating working conditions that no one is/was doing anything about. He didn't make a big deal out of it so no one cared except me andf a few other fellow Danes here. To even talk about a badge of honor for dealing with disruptive editors when things have evolved the way they have simply makes no sense. This isn't "the admins vs the trolls" any longer simply because we can no longer rely on the admins to take care of the issues we face. Like it or not the admins and non-admins are in this together and until you realize that we cannot take this category seriously. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am terrifically sorry to see Valentinan has stopped editing, he was one of the good guys. I always tried to respond when he brought issues to my attention, ever since I first became an admin (ask me about the "swedish meatballs are not as good as danish meatballs" POV war sometime). Do people have bad days? sure. Are there some bad apples? sure. That's been the case from the start and always will be the case. But if you think ALL admins care more about things other than responding to the needs of the project, we all might as well hang it up. I don't think things are bad as all that. That's not quite the same as acknowledging that things have changed. Things can be different without necessarily being better, or worse. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've always found this kind of humor uncomfortable, and if this category (to which someone once added me, presumably as a joke) wasn't there, the encyclopedia would not suffer one bit. If you need a deletion reason, I'd say it's "File under juvenilia (community growth)". --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 5

• Delete per my stance that, just like we don't allow jokes in mainspace, we shouldn't allow jokes in the category space. The userbox should be sufficient to convey the joke; categories on the other hand should actually be helpful to the project. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or delete all of Wikipedia due to historical inability to stop people from making tits of themselves everywhere else. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not standardize for no specific reason. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Putting Lar and John's disruptive behavior to the side, the joke is not in good taste. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's immature, in bad taste, a walled garden among administrators, it has become a drama magnet, and is overall not the sort of thing that we should be doing here. Wikidemo (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and (as a rouge admin) I'll block anyone who !votes "delete". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would make you a rogue admin. User:Dorftrottel 20:24, February 15, 2008
• Keep per Neil and rename "Rogue" Admins, as "Rouge" is a color - Also fix the images, as the spelling is all fuxed up there, too. Stop the bullshit drama over anything containing humor, exaggerating situations to skew the circumstances. Instead, go be constructive. Lara❤Love 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just to hopefully clarify this once and for all, the misspelling "rouge" was intentional, to make fun of old complaints against admins from people who spelled the word wrong. I still think this category should be deleted, but it's been bothering me seeing everyone thinking this is an unintentional misspelling. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:14, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • Not even old as people still make the typo. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Lapinmies and others. We can have humour on Wikipedia, but when it goes out of hand.. thats it. The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless, divisive, and unfunny. What are the admins categorizing themselves as "rouge" are trying to say? "Look at me, I am an admin with a complete disregard for rules"? Ha-ha, I am ROFLing... not. Use userboxes if you are so inclined to show a bad sense of humor, but don't make a whole category just for that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This category is obviously meant to be humorous, but I really don't understand the edit war started when a "user adds himself to a category that identifies himself as an admin when he is not". This category should have no official status. I am stunned that a user was 3RR blocked for a small non-harmful addition to his userspace. How about a merge with Category:Rouge_editors or instead the category should be protected? If neither, there is no need whatsoever for an admin to get trigger-happy with the block button if an 'edit war' breaks out over a non-admin adding themselves to this category again. EJF (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC). change to strong delete - after carefully thinking this through, this category only generates ill-will. The fact that so many people are voting for keep and not giving a reasoned argument rather than I like it, or it doesn't do any harm - when in fact it did Equazcion harm. EJF (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no reason for one unfortunate incident to sour us on a longstanding part of Wikipedia culture. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - serves no practical purpose. Guest9999 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If anybody is getting blocked because of this silly and useless category then it should be deleted. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No real convincing reasons for deletion given. Lots of things cause pointless drama, it seems like en.wp can't get anything done without pointless drama anymore. Seriously, we probably have thousands of user categories, why would you put yourself into one that doesn't describe you? I don't live in Africa, therefore it would make no sense for me to put Category:Wikipedians in Africa on my userpage. Do I put it on my page and then make a huge deal out of it (Not fair! Too Afro-centric! Category-equality for all!) when people tell me to take it off? No, that would be stupid. If you are seriously offended because people don't want you to put yourself into a category that doesn't describe you at all, you really need to realign your priorities here. Mr.Z-man 03:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep zomg drama. If you need a real reason: the case made for deleting the humor category is not convincing, and is based on a mountain made out of a molehill. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, amusing when not taken seriously. Don't attempt restrict to admins. If a non-admin wants to use it, who gives a shit? I certainly don't; as long as they're not using it to misrepresent themselves in serious discussions (Although who on earth would use "I r a rouge admin" as a credential in a serious discussion, I don't bloody know). Or maybe just rename the stupid thing to "rouge editor" for equality purposes, although that's not nearly as common a Wikimeme. Apologies should be immediately issued to Equazcion for the ludicrous drama of the block if they have not been already, and we should all move the fuck along. ♠PMC♠ 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposed alternative

I can't claim credit for this as I saw someone else suggest it. I believe it was User:Lar who had said that the main problem is that Category:Rouge admins is a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia administrators. What if we just remove it from that category? That way it would actually be a straight joke, with no technical admin connotation.

The only question is, would this remedy cause the pertinent admins to regard the category as a pure joke, or would they still throw a fit if it's "misused"? If so, perhaps a slight rename, in conjunction with the above, would do the trick. Point being, I personally don't necessarily have a problem with joke categories, as long as they are actually regarded as such, without exception. So I'd be open to whatever needs to be done towards that end. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:39, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

If the main problem is that the category is categorized correctly, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem to discuss here. Kusma (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point, of course, was that if this is intended as a joke, then perhaps it shouldn't be in a category that is supposed to imply something serious. And yes it is something to discuss here, since its status as a joke is seems to be pivotal in this discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Category talk:Rouge admins proposing removal from the admin-cat-tree. I say discussion, it don't seem to have had much activity. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to break it off from the main admin category. Although it is a joke, it is only for admins. The fact that one non-admin found it appropriate to add himself to a category that results in his userpage giving the impression that he is an admin, and then ignoring admins that tell him it's inappropriate, is not a good reason for yet another pointless proposal to delete a joke. Not everyone gets every joke, so you can't base it off of "some people don't get it, so it fails." Neg. It's a joke admin category that is obviously for admin use only. If someone can't grasp that and has to popped in the head with a clue-by-four in the form of a 24-hour block, then that's not something you can fault the category for. Lara❤Love 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, one could legitimately ask why "admin joke categories" seem to be immune from the standards applied to "non-admin joke categories", and whether having different standards in this way is beneficial. I would also point out that until the recent events, there was nothing on the category page that made it obvious it was for admins only. What was obvious was that it was a joke, one in very poor taste, but a joke nonetheless. Nothing whatsoever to suggest that it was a private joke for the élite only. And I think I am right in saying that "it's funny" or "I like it" are normally not accepted reasons for keeping anything. If the admn-cat-tree is meant to be taken seriously, it should not have joke admin cats in it. If, on the other hand, one is not meant to take the admin-cat-tree seriously, then by all means populate it with jokes. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case for the defense?

Lets turn this argument around, other than I like it, Its funny and its an Admin thing is there a reason for this category to exist? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand it, being a member of the Rouge Admin category used to be something of a badge of honour, and admins did not add themselves to the category. IF it were returned to that basis, and suitable explanation provided, and IF a similar rationale could exist for non-admin editors to be added to Rouge Non-Admins, then there might be some case that could be made for its retention. It could be useful to have a category of admins to approach who are more likely to stop, listen, and decide on principle by using WP:IAR if necessary, rather than going to one of the admins who is addicted to detailed policy wordings. The equivalent non-admin cat would then be for editors who have brushed aside policy impediments to get the best outcome for the encyclopedia. Actually, they could even be combined to make a Rouge Wikipedians category. As an alternative, some sort of Honour Board where any editor could add an admin (plus an equivalent for non-admins, or a joint board) might be less divisive. It would need to have a rationale for adding someone, so that it had some genuine meaning. I could even suggest a comparable Lemon Board, but I think that might be a little too divisive! Jay*Jay (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with a joint category but it needs to emphasize that we are in this together. I suspect the rouge editors category will get deleted together with whatever other categories were created in response to this so the creation of a joint category focusing on actual issues and those who have dealt with those issues regardless of their status would be a welcome change of attitude. Heck, some of us might even start to feel appreciated enough to return to main space editing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a slightly unrelated comment: As much as that was a joke, you don't need to wait for admins to appreciate you in order to edit the mainspace (it probably won't happen anyway). Just because they act disruptively doesn't mean your contributions are going unappreciated by everyone else. We don't edit for admins; We edit for Wikipedians. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:35, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree about the appreciation (but not about the source of disruption, you've got the wrong end of the stick on that). But I'll go farther. The two people you should be editing for are "yourself" and "the little girl in the Congo on her hand cranked laptop" who needs the knowledge you have to impart. Editing to get accolades from others, be they whoever, may not be effective. Accolades are spotty. Sometimes you get them and sometimes you don't. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah Lar, because little girls in Congo totally have laptops. Bye. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is that a serious comment? I know some people like to assume all of Africa is nothing but jungles filled with lions and hippos, but even the Congo has places like Kinshasa. And yes, they have laptops. - auburnpilot talk 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My comment was metaphorical but the goal of this project is to make the sum of the world's knowledge available to all, including those who would otherwise not have access. As for those little girls getting their laptops, read up on OLPC XO, it's not a 100 USD laptop, yet, but it's closer than anyone ever came before. My point stands... write for the readers, and for your own personal gratification, not for recognition, accolades, whatever, from others. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No one said anything about accolades. When EconomicsGuy originally made his "feel appreciated" comment, I really don't think he was stating his wish to be awarded compliments or barnstars. He was referring to a more general feeling, perhaps one he gets when situations like this arise, that people who otherwise work hard on this encyclopedia (ahem) get the bum's rush for stupid little reasons. I agree, to a point, in that it would be nice if appreciation were shown (in, again, an abstract way), at least in a refrain from hindrance, as it often feels like certain people have a mindset that only serves to create obstacles for constructive editors. But again, obstacles will come from all around, no one is purely good, even your supposed allies, and that's something you just have to deal with, on Wikipedia and in life. So remember all the people you're doing this for, whoever they might be, and try to imagine that they appreciate what you're doing. And remember Jimbo, who appreciates you because you make him rich :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:35, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
              • Thank you Equazcion that was exactly what I meant. AuburnPilot I know that but do you think they care that Equazcion added himself to this? I somehow don't think so. Those fortunate enough to have access care about the articles. And yes they do have laptops and Internet access. But they don't care about personal vendettas, hours after hours wasted on stupid debates about silly issues or who is in the "we don't need appreciation but here is our badge of honor" category which you defend with disruptive blocks. No, they care why George W. Bush needs semi-protection when there are 1400 admins to patrol the place, they care why so many articles lack references when so many people have to care if Equazcion added himself to a category and they care why people who are so much better off than themselves can't get along but needs to pursue personal vendettas to make themselves feel important. Once they have thought about that for long enough they simply walk away. So tell me, how are we helping the little girl in Congo who needs access to accurate information for free? I didn't ask for your barn stars, pats on the back or access to your exclusive club. Don't want it, don't need it. I simply ask that you realize that like it or not we are in this together - because that little girl in Congo simply doesn't care about these ridiculous disputes and personal vendettas. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Or more explicitly, how does this category facilitate encyclopedic collaboration? If this isn't MySpace for religious wikipedians et al., it's not MySpace for Admins either. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very doubtful that people are making social connections via this category. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it for then Ned? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's not even as useful as the "myspace"ish categories? DenisMoskowitz (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• and in case it's not clear, Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NFT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisMoskowitz (talk • contribs)

Are admins editors? (alternatively, "Arbitrary Break 6")

• Delete - Are admins not editors? If not, then there is a class system. If so, then the category for Rouge Editors would be sufficient for all without all the stupid WikiDrama that surrounds the admin category only being for admins. I see this as pretty simple... Either all Wikipedians are created equal and we only need a "Rouge Editors" category, or there is a class system with the upper-class (snobby?) admins and the peasant non-admin editors (like me, proud peasant). Why have the double-standard of two otherwise identical categories? VigilancePrime (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with VigilancePrime. Admins are editors just like the rest of us, except with other 'powers' to help keep the wiki in order (or give in maintenance) . They are still editors so we should all be treated the same. A quick read of WP:ADMIN shows this...

• Comment: Agree too. This is a good statement of the heart of the issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:02, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll third that. --Kbdank71 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins are most certainly editors, but administrative actions are not the same thing as editorial actions. Mr.Z-man 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• such as being part of a joke category? that an admin action? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:20, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I will emphasise the sentence again! From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Although administrative actions are not the same thing as editorial actions as you said, it doesn't mean that you should say that you are a subgroup... exactly like WP:ADMIN says. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, yes, that's why people want to become admins, so they can be part of the special subgroup that can add themselves to admin categories. By that logic, we should not have Category:Wikipedia administrators. What I mean is: how can one be a "rouge admin," when they couldn't do any rouge admin actions if they wanted to. Yes its a joke category., but its not funny if it doesn't make any sense. Something is seriously wrong with the train of thought of some of the people commenting here. The category is called "Rouge admins". If you aren't an admin, how is it funny to add yourself to the category? Mr.Z-man 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You contradict yourself. If it's funny to proclaim you're a "rouge" admin when it's not possible to be one, it should be all the more funny to proclaim you're a "rouge admin" when you're not even an admin. Either way, you're saying that you're something you're not. That's the source of the humor. Besides which, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't funny. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:21, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Its perfectly possible to be one, you kind of need admin tools to do it though. Mr.Z-man 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No you don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:12, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• How do you apply IAR to admin actions without being an admin? Mr.Z-man 06:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not applying IAR to admin actions. I'm applying IAR to the contention that you must be an admin in order to identify yourself as one -- not that I even agree that this category identifies oneself as an admin, nor that there is even a rule saying you're not allowed to identify as such. But, even if there were such a rule, IAR. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:44, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. While the tools granted to administrators are technical and do not convey authority per se, administrators are people that are entrusted with, if not used properly, very harmful tools. is directly from WP:ADMIN and then Jimbo's comment:

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fifthed", or so... User:Dorftrottel 20:17, February 15, 2008

• Delete category and immediately de-sysop all members, per my hilarious rant on the Category:Rouge admins talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. How manifestly disruptive must a category be before we realize that it's not worth the "humor" value? Non-admins have their humor categories regularly deleted. And frankly, this one stopped being funny when it started being used as a license to ignore any and all criticism. Hubris from admins is too deleterious for me to find amusing at the moment. To the many good admins in the category, please realize it doesn't take very many bad eggs to ruin the omelet. I'm sorry that your brunch was ruined. --JayHenry (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If I counted right (this is mostly about headcount, right?) it's 22 k vs 6 d among admins, and 4 k vs 21 d among non-admins. Wow. Looks like Kbdank is right after all: "This won't be deleted, period. Someone might as well close it now, so it can go to DRV and get endorsed. The admins want their toys, the admins will have their toys." Good thing our admins are more mature than the rest of us. User:Dorftrottel 20:29, February 15, 2008
  • I'm glad someone other than me brought this up, as I've been keeping a similar count. Show of hands, who predicted this outcome before voting even began? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:33, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if that's the case about the votes, how about we get somebody other than admins and non-admins such as Jimbo himself to get into the discussion? The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jimbo is an admin. User:Dorftrottel 20:53, February 15, 2008
        • I'm more concerned about the closing. Is it really fair that an admin will be closing this? What other possibilities are there? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:57, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
          • Who said anything about fair? User:Dorftrottel 21:10, February 15, 2008
          • Actually if an admin is going to do it I would suggest someone like Newyorkbrad if he wants the job. At least we know that he will see this from both sides. There is no way this is going to be 100% fair anyway - the best we can hope for is a closer with the guts to support a merge of the two categories. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was actually toying with suggesting User:DGG. He's consistently been the most neutral person I know of, admin or otherwise. Even the admins have attested to that in the past. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:24, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
              • Strong support for DGG as the closer. He has been consistently neutral and fair even when we have disagreed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So admins aren't a special subgroup, and are just a part of the community except when we're counting votes? Mr.Z-man 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is how they consider themselves, not what they are. The voting statistic in this discussion appears to show a clear weight of admins vs. regular folks, so closing by an admin hardly seems fair. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:28, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
      • Across the social strata, the opinions are equally divided, which means no consensus. The fact that some admins are voting, some even without providing any rationale or simply parotting the strawman argument regarding the incident —which was the occasion but not the reason for this discussion— is nevertheless appalling. User:Dorftrottel 21:39, February 15, 2008
• Delete, per Newyorkbrad in the first MFD for WP:ROUGE, "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."[1] It's just not worth having more ridiculous ANI threads and more ridiculous blocks over a lame joke category. No editor would ever have any need to look up a list of "rouge admins" — whether you personally find it funny or not. The category serves no actual purpose and it's disruptive and divisive. If admins want to have a little "fun" and joke about cabals and/or typos, they still have WP:ROUGE (for now) and that delightful IRC channel. Making WP:ROUGE appear like a clique is a Bad Idea™. The part about the "Rouge Admin Cabal" "[blocking] people at random" in WP:SPIDER is not so funny in light of that trainwreck ANI thread. And this CFD better not be closed like that MFD was. The joke's over. --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "In a perfect world, this would be Deleted, but it's just not worth having deletion quarrels repeatedly break out over a humor essay.--Doc^g 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination concerns only the category, not the essay. Of course, I can understand your comment in light of the fact that much of the discussion has become about the essay, but still... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or listify to WP:ROUGE. I think there are a few points on which (almost) everyone can agree:

1. Category:Rouge admins and Wikipedia:Rouge admins are related pages, but they are not inseparable.
2. The continued existence of this category is controversial.
3. This category is claimed to exist for the purpose of humour rather than to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration or administration/maintenance; however, not everyone finds it to be humorous.

From the standpoint of a cost-benefit analysis, the costs of the continued existence of this category outweigh the benefits. The continued existence of the category is likely to be a source of tension and/or drama; the benefits, however, are nonexistent. The humour of the phrase "rouge admin" is found at WP:ROUGE, not in this category. Deleting the category does not result in deletion of the "joke"; it will only result in the removal of the various bottom-of-the-page notices. (Note that there is ample precedent that categories - whether for user pages or articles - should not merely be bottom-of-the-page notices.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have been keeping out of this, because as an admin I have never considered adding myself to the category. I am concerned that joke categories for admins are being preserved while those for non-admins are being deleted. I think we have now reached the point when all joke categories should be deleted. Anyway, it not the category that is the joke, assuming something is funny about all this. The joke is the article Wikipedia:Rouge admin itself and the template Template:User rouge that an admin can put on their user page. Those should stay but the category is not funny in itself and serves no useful purpose. Let us delete it and leave it at that with no drama at deletion review or anywhere else. --Bduke (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create a Rouge Wikipedians category - preferebly with entry by nomination by others. Failing having a RW category, simply delete. The stratification associated with the existence of admins should be minimised as much as possible, and the fact that we ended up having a user blocked over this just demonstrates how silly this whole situation has become. If this were truly still about a joke, that block would never have happened. As for someone to close this, I would agree that Newyorkbrad would be a good choice, although he may be seen as having a COI having commented in the earlier CfD MfD. It does need to be someone with the near-unanimous respect and support of the community. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newyorkbrad commented in the MfD, not the earlier CfDs. --Pixelface (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment, Pixelface. CfD stricken in favour of MfD. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Should have been deleted a while ago. WP:ROUGE is next. Alexfusco⁵ 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Rouge_admin_(3rd_nomination) Alexfusco⁵ 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any arguments for this category

Lets turn this argument around, other than I like it, Its funny and its an Admin thing is there a reason for this category to exist?

I asked the above question and got no answers. So i'm trying again because wikipedia is not a democracy so it does not matter how many admins vote keep, you are providing no reasons why this insulting and drama making Cat needs to exists while those of use who want it gone have provided lots of policy reasons. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think it's fair to note that while the main argument boils down to "it's fun", roughly half the people here don't agree to that, which means the point is moot regardless of the other half who enjoy the funniness of it. Also, as Bduke pointed out above, the funniness functions primarily via Wikipedia:Rouge admin and the template. The category is a whole other story and I've yet to see an argument that demonstrates how the (in itself rather questionable, regarding the current 50:50 situation) funniness is linked to the category in particular, and how the essence of it couldn't be retained via the essay and userbox. User:Dorftrottel 13:37, February 16, 2008

• Keep Adding my voice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting, to be precise, which is discouraged. User:Dorftrottel 18:10, February 16, 2008

Spartaz did you read what i posted? This is exactly what i'm complaining about. What policies support your position? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course voting is evil and in an ideal world my vote would be discarded by the closing admin because it adds nothing. The trouble with long xFDs like this one is that all the useful arguments get used up in the first section and the remaining 40odd contributions are effectively metoos. In a conventional assessment of strength of argument this doesn't matter but long lengthy debates also need the closing admin to gauge the strength of community support for each position. Hence my vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then atleast do a Support according to X's arguements. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with User:Dorftrottel's comment above, the userbox is fine, but the category is the problem. Also, with the discussion above regarding the parent category. If it needs to have a cat, Category:Rouge editors is better, but do such categories really help the project? Or even help with the social side help of Wikipedia.It would seem that if you added this category to your page and it is going to be a subcat of Category:administrators then you shouldn't be in both cats, which would be really weird. If anyone wants to find the folks (admin or otherwise) who ascribe to this idea/joke he or she can always go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_rouge - don't worry, you won't be lost. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosadist: You're unlikely to get an answer. I asked the same question three days ago without getting an answer, and I asked two months ago when the user category was last proposed for deletion, and never got an answer then either. The problem is that too many people (especially admins who should know better) appear to be unable to separate the concept of (user) categories from essays and userboxes. The category is not the source of the amusement, but (as the block on Equazcion demonstrated) it is the source of the problem. Deleting it will eliminate the source of the strife, and eliminate the need for the (newly created) Category:Rouge editors. Horologium (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but i'll keep asking the question. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, blaming a category rather then the blocking admin for a disputed block is, well, interesting to say the least. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the block had not been supported by several admins on the ground that it is admin-only, your argument might be more persuasive. Quite a number of admins cited supporting the block for precisely that reason, not for edit-warring. When someone gets blocked, it's not funny. Horologium (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosadist: I'm sorry you didn't see my response as relevant to the question posed. I was trying to suggest a way in which the category could possibly be modified so it served some (arguably) legitimate purpose. Implicit in my answer was that, at present, I believe the answer to your question is 'No'. It is divisive in that it is elevating admins 'above' editors which policy does not support. It is causing disruption (ie that recent block) and drawing attention away from encyclopedia building (per the active discussion here). Whilst the user box and essay are fine, the category should go. Hopefully this is a clearer response. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a clear answer Jay. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting that Template:Rouge, which is touted as an alternative to Template:User rouge, doesn't invoke any categories. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Sault Ste. Marie

February 10

Category:Eurasian Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors

Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors - Potentially all-inclusive category. And likely to grow larger and larger every day. (And how does one non-subjectively define the criteria for inclusion?) Anyone looking to collaborate with someone knowledgeable about Good articles, need merely drop a note on that talk page. - jc37 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Including everyone that made an edit to any good article just makes a very unwieldy and useless category. --Kbdank71 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pretty sure there is a featured article equivelant for this category as well. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've found this cat to be useful in helping to promote comradery and co-operation among Wikipedians interested in GAs. Johnfos (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, these are users who have specified a distinct area of interest, even if by an odd criteria (odd to some, personally I don't think it's odd). -- Ned Scott 06:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A useful category. In the wonderful, but thoroughly unlikely, event that all Wikipedians suddenly became interested in improving content then this category would still be useful as a parent category, subdivided by interests within the Good Article process (reviewers, writers, copy editors, pop culture GAs, or what have you). User categories around our most important processes ought to be considered valid and have clear collaborative potential. --JayHenry (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a question: How useful? If I make a one-word addition to a good article, doesn't that make me a contributor? Take Atom, for example, a recently listed good article. In the last 150 edits, there are well over 20 separate contributors. How many more are there in the entire history? How many more for all of the good articles out there? And every day, there would be more contributors as more and more people edit good articles. How useful is that? Are you really interested in collaborating with just about everyone? Can you really tell me this is anything more than editors wanting to toot their own horns? --Kbdank71 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How useful? On a scale of 1 to 17 it has a usefulness rating of 11.4 in my estimation :) Is your point that users can frivolously and unhelpfully add themselves to user categories? Certainly true, but nothing unique to this category. Perhaps separate the category from the userbox if that's a concern. Say with this user category (true for other big categories as well), if I had a question about Good Articles, I have encountered hundreds of editors and don't know off the top of my head which of them are interested or familiar with the GA process. Now I can look through the category to find an editor who I am comfortable approaching. As I said above, the category could (and maybe should) be further sub-categorized by more specific interest. How about we leave a note at GA talk encouraging them to do this? --JayHenry (t) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be relevant to note the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles and Category:WikiProject Good Articles members. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, this I can get behind. Category:WikiProject Good Articles members says collaboration. That is where I would go to ask a question about good articles. --Kbdank71 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it into Category:WikiProject Good Articles members, which is fairly duplicative, and more explicitly about collaboration. krimpet✽ 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think merging may obscure the scope of the proposed target category. This category is for editors who contribute to good articles, whereas the other category is for users who contribute to the GA process as reviewers, nominators, writers, or something else. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Krimpet. --Kbdank71 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It sounds like those supporting keeping are advocating a category titled Wikipedians interested in contributing to Good Articles (or something similar) which I would support keeping. Simply categorizing those who have ever contributed to an article with GA status, however, as this currently does, is not helpful. A rename might not capture everyone in the category, so a deletion with indpendent creation under a better title would be the best solution IMO. VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by text editor

Category:Wikipedians by text editor

Category:Wikipedians who use gedit

Category:Wikipedians who use Vim

Category:Wikipedians who use Textpad

Category:Wikipedians who use TextMate

Category:Wikipedians who use Nano

Category:Wikipedians who use Kate

Category:Wikipedians who use jEdit

Category:Wikipedians who use Emacs

While each has its own set of "bells and whistles", it shouldn't matter which editor is used, even as External editors. A userpage notice should be enough. - jc37 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as nominator. - jc37 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - See editor war for some insight on how important people think their editor is. What's the point in deleting them? (As a plan B, I'd vote to delete all but the Emacs option - those other editors are mere toys). --Gronky (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia is not a battleground. Horologium (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you seem to have missed his point. This has nothing to do with making a battle on Wikipedia, he's just pointing to an article that offers some insight on user preferences. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as per nom. Horologium (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I must be missing something. What criteria is it being deleted under? (Other than the nom's comment "it shouldn't matter") A quick search of en.wikipedia.org for the string "Wikipedians_who_are" shows that pretty much all such categories of this type are of the "I think it shouldn't matter" variety. --Gronky (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The basic criterion under which user categories are judged is: Does a grouping of users on a certain characteristic facilitate coordination and collaboration amongst users for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to justify keeping the categories for any editor which has a significant amount of related content in Wikipedia. For Emacs, there are five detailed articles plus about seven medium length articles on derivatives. For vi and vim there's probably similar. So those two should stay. For the other editors, you may be right that facilitating communication between their users cannot lead to any significant contribution to Wikipedia. --Gronky (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a point. However, since Emacs is the only one of these that qualifies, and the text editor category is not particularly relevant to contribution (unlike most of the other software cats), it might be appropriate to move it to Category:Wikipedians interested in Emacs, a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by interest. From what little I know of Emacs (MicroEMACS was installed on my Amiga 4000, but I don't think I ever used it), it's freeware, which means it would fit nicely inside Category:Wikipedians interested in free software. My point is that we shouldn't have a parent category with only a single child inside, and Category:Wikipedians by text editor cannot directly contain any users, because of its name. BTW, EMACS has its own article category, Category:Emacs, with 41(!) articles in the cat; neither vi nor any of the others have an equivalent, which is why Emacs should be treated differently from its peers. Horologium (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't aware of the by-interest categories. Then yes, I agree that the "Wikipedians who use Emacs" category should be renamed to "Wikipedians interested in Emacs". How do we signal this new suggestion to the closing admin? For want of knowing better: HEY CLOSING ADMIN :-)
• (Emacs is indeed free software, but a merge to "interested in free software" would be too broad - free software has 100 million users while emacs probably has less than 100thousand.) --Gronky (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The EMACS cat can be moved as a subcat of the free software interest cat, not a straight merge into it. I agree that interest in EMACS and interest in free software are not necessarily the same thing, but it is a subset. Horologium (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see this as anything more than "look at me, I use x". Especially when a reason to keep is "People think their editor is important". Well, of course they do, but that doesn't mean you need a category for it. --Kbdank71 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Although there a number of articles related to some text editors, such as Emacs, the fact of merely using a particular text editor does not imply an interest in or ability to contribute to articles related to that editor. That is, just because someone uses a particular text editor does not automatically mean that they want to write about that editor. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox, but I will probably never edit Firefox. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all This one is actually appropriate to contributing to the encyclopedia. Seeing who uses what in selecting how one wishes to work around here can be a very valuable thing to do. Given the deficiencies of the internal editor, I might well want to ask others about their experiences. DGG (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians with negative experiences with the internal editor? Sounds awful close to being a "Support/Oppose" category. ("Deficiency" is, of course, subjective to the preferences of the users in question, I would presume.) In addition, the current categories don't specify that this is how the editors edit Wikipedia, merely that they have a preference for using a certain editor over other editors. - jc37 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment that bewilders me. It's pretty obvious that the category is talking about contributing to Wikipedia (just as we assume with the browser categories) -- Ned Scott 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? This isn't about what you're contributing, but how. Would you honestly say to someone, "Wow, I sure would like to help you write that article, but you're using Textpad, sorry. I only collaborate with people who use gedit." No, you wouldn't. What people say is ultimately more important than the tool they use to say it. So I ask, how is this information valuable? --Kbdank71 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That.. really doesn't have anything to do with what DGG just said... -- Ned Scott 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No? DGG said knowing who uses what is valuable. I asked how so. (Yeah, I know, I also said some other stuff. If you wish, ignore that and concentrate on the questions I asked) --Kbdank71 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Black Falcon. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• :0,$d. krimpet✽ 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, same justification as what browsers people use. Sorry if some people don't feel the information is useful, but though people do find it useful, and it doesn't violate anything. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion of the category doesn't remove the "information", useful or otherwise. It can still exist on someone's userpage. This is about the category grouping. - jc37 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So we should manually go out and check every single userpage in order to collect the same information? To claim that it's ok to delete a category, being used as a category, is ok because people can still individually state what they're doing. All that information isolated is pretty much worthless. The value comes when it's collected together, and in a manageable form. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a difference between claiming that something is useful and being able to explain why or how it is useful. If one cannot do the latter, then there is generally no basis for the former. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then allow me to explain. Understanding how people work with Wikipedia, what tools they use, is very valuable information. At any given time someone can use these categories to contact users that use these different methods, to gain information that can be shared with others. I'm not sure how many people use these categories, but the number of users alone might be useful information. Not to mention that people often will make some sort of script or plug-in that works with a specific text editor, and would like to find a way to tell others about it (that is, one that is Wikipedia related). These things happen all the time for the browsers categories, and I see no reason to believe they don't have that potential for text editors. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I used to be in many "wikipedians who use foo" categories, but it was simply to let people know what I used. I didn't use them to broadcast how I edit related categories (because I didn't) or to show how helpful I would be if contacted (because I wouldn't have been if I had). I figured if someone had a question or wanted to collaborate, they'd get in contact with a wikiproject, or some other gathering place for people who actually wanted to help and had the knowledge to do so. These categories convey neither. Hell, I'm even in Category:Wikipedia administrators, but only because I am one, not because of my helping nature. If you want admin help, go to the admin noticeboard, not to me. And I will eat my hat if more than 10% of all wikipedians put themselves into a wikipedian category because they want to help. Most of them just got lumped in because they are using a userbox. And I will also guarantee that the vast majority of them wouldn't give a damn (or even notice) if the category that was attached to their userbox was removed from the template. --Kbdank71 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. I'm actually pretty curious what people use when they edit Wikipedia and how their experience is. I find the built-in editor pretty clunky myself. In a way I'm glad these got nominated because I didn't know they existed; now I can investigate this. But of course I hope they don't get deleted, because they certainly are useful. These aren't just more of the "look at me" myspace-type cats. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:10, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• I use UltraEdit to edit articles (by cutting and pasting) all the time because it has fairly powerful search/replace as well as macro capabilities. Although it is not a category under discussion I would get use from knowing who else uses UltraEdit so I could share tips/techniques or ask questions. (as I do for people who use Perl, Excel, etc. Rename them as you like, but keep the categories as they do foster collaboration. Not so much on the articles about the editors, but around the tools and techniques that they can bring to bear on editing articles about completely unrelated things. Unlike what brand of coffee you favour, what editor you use has a direct impact on the likelihood of my deciding to ask you a question about how to accomplish a particular tricky thing. The category is a better way of finding who might be a good person to ask than any other vehicle. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

Category:Wikipedians interested in actors

Category:Wikipedians who like Numberwang

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Car-free movement

Category:Wikipedians of Multiracial ancestry

Merge Category:Wikipedians of Multiracial ancestry to Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, single-user category with a capitalisation issue ("multiracial" should be lower-case). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Switched to 'delete' as first preference. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as redundant. нмŵוτнτ 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - As non-specific. Even if we were to entertain the notion that being of more than one "race" might be useful for collaboration, this isn't specific to which races are included. Just looking at Race (classification of human beings), I see:

• "The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race American Association of Physical Anthropologists "Pure races do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past." The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification."

Sooo, which, what and who? Just too vague to be useful. - jc37 09:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. While I understand what JC37 is saying, I don't think I can agree with the link, which is part of a larger sociopolitical debate; this category does not, in and of itself, espouse any particular philosophy. Horologium (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's part of the problem. There simply is no specific criteria for inclusion. Is this a category of those whose parents had different skin colours? Those whose parents had distinctive facial features? And further, what about the generally accepted races themselves. Is there any collaborative use for someone who may be of American Indian and and Taiwanese ancestry to be grouped with someone of Western European and Latin American ancestry? This category is just a big melting pot of subjective additives. - jc37 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per JC. I'm not seeing how someone of two or more races would be able to collaborate on any article where a person of only one race would not. And it is pretty subjective. How far back can I go to show that I have more than one race in me? And what percentage must each be to be considered multiracial? --Kbdank71 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per jc37. (Both categories are tagged, so there should be no procedural problems with deletion, assuming there is consensus to do so.) In addition to the lack of defined criteria for inclusion, there is also the issue of usefulness. A grouping of multiracial users doesn't facilitate collaboration, and it seems to me that this category is little more than a "bottom-of-the-page" notice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. A deletion of the main category is procedurally inappropriate because it hasn't been nominated, and in very poor form given that race is an important issue to some people for self-identification, and telling someone of mixed race that race does not or should not exist is highly and aggressively POV. Wikidemo (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This page, just as CFD, is a "Categories for discussion" page. It doesn't matter what the nominator intends. The closure is a result of consensus. And as both have been tagged, there is no reason why the categories can't be merged/deleted/renamed/whatever, depending on what the consensus is determined to be. - jc37 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No one's insisting that race does not or should not exist, nor that editors should not express their racial identification. Rather, the argument is that there is no need to maintain a list of multiracial Wikipedians, as such a grouping does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese heritage

Category:Religious pluralist Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who use Netflix

Category:Wikipedians who are Distributed Proofreaders