Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin

Spelling

I think you mean rogue and not rouge; I suppose that’s why this essay is funny. However, when you’re following policy and someone says you’re not, that’s not funny.--68.167.7.162 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The joke about "rouge" admins dates back to 2002 when the admin class was first created. It is not misspelt - "Rouge" is a common mis-typing of rogue, and that is how the label was first created. You seem to be misunderstanding the point about the rouge admins - since the earliest days we have had to deal with people coming to Wikipedia to spread 'THE TRUTH', and the rouge admins were those who faced these nutjobs passionate editors down. Manning (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this page send the wrong message?

Sure, we've all run into psychoceramicists who make this page funny, but one of the issues that's been simmering at Wikipedia is the lack of oversight of the admin corps. This page has the unfortunate side message that the admins are really right all along and that anyone who disagrees does so because they are... difficult. I've met my share of unhelpful responses from admins who assume that anyone who disagrees is accusing them of being rouge. There's a sentiment in customer service that the "customer is always right" and this page, among others, might give the impression that complaining is meaningless because the "customer is always wrong."

Sure, it's funny, but Wikipedia's terrible "customer service" to the editors is part of the reason we're shrinking and not growing. I don't know if deleting this page would actually help, but I would support the deletion of it at an MFD if someone wants to second it by proposing it (or just say so and I'll figure out how to do the technical stuff). SDY (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Having worked in customer service for a national wine merchant and a global telecommunications company, I can assure you that the customer is usually wrong. Of course, in the real world it is perfectly permissible to assume bad faith. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) WIKIPEDIA IS THE REAL WORLD, User:Suriel1981!! READ WP:IRL AND THEN GO TO THE NAUGHTY CORNER!! signed: THE CABAL

I don't think that's the message at all. The page parodies and satirises those who, when they don't get their way and face admin action as a result of their insistence, immediately begin censuring said admins - hence the list of frequently applied labels (fascist, anti-Semitic, etc.) - and blaming them for the consequences of their own actions, typically whilst proclaiming their own righteousness. These people have seldom perused the policies of Wikipedia and are usually extremely obstinate, almost never backing down, and react in a petulant, infantile manner when they continue to 'misbehave' - eg sock puppets, vandalising, etc. They also have a penchant for long-winded rants with intensive use of self-righteous rhetoric, replete with typos; thus, 'rouge' as opposed to 'rogue'. They're Wikipedia's fundamentalists, 'truth seekers' who regard those not enlightened as 'sheeple' and other similar obnoxious terms. Basically, they make an edit(s), it contravenes policy and is reverted, they revert back, blah blah, an admin is called in to resolve the dispute, offering advice and whatnot, perhaps an arbitration case commences...but, most of the time, these warriors of truth fail to listen and comprehend - or they willfully ignore and misunderstand - and, since they're so goddamn stubborn, they can't conceive of their being in the wrong, so they blame it on everyone else - in particular, those who they perceive as having 'power', admins. They often unconsciously associate power with corruption, wholly misconstruing how Wikipedia and consensus functions, and cry censorship, suppression, etc. Does that make sense?I don't see how anybody, aside from said POV warriors, could consider this remotely offensive. If you don't find it funny, too bad - I do, and I'm evidently not the only one.Peace :) 124.168.210.216 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (User:Psychonavigation)

Let's get them Rouge bastids NIGH!!! Basket _Feudalist 16:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly there are such "warriors of truth" and a little satire is appropriate, but it seems a bit one sided without the other angle in it of "warriors against the truth" pretending to be genuine admins who are also here. I have been watching one in action and he or she gets many complaints from editors that indicate an unwillingness to debate the issues properly. I invited constructive discussion on one issue on his or her talk page and it was deleted. Whether their is a cabal I don't know, but there is certainly one rogue admin I have noticed. He or she will probably be stopped eventually but might do lots of damage before that happens. Interestingly he or she has one of those label things that others put on the persons talk page which directs us to this bit of one-sided humor. Good cover for a real Rogue Admin it seems to me. It took me a while to get my head around it.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that like everyone, your contribs are visible to everyone? Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Woops, I made a newbie mistake. I will however attempt to tackle him directly if he doesn't be more appropriate. It occurs to me also that it might not have been him who deleted my question from his talk page. I don't know who has that power. Maybe a hacker could have done it even.Jed Stuart (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This page absolutely sends the wrong message assuming you want people to believe the admins aren't petty assholes high on pretend internet power. Hell I agree with the message hidden under the snarky superiority complex but it sets my teeth on edge to read this drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.190.193 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 June 2016‎

I agree with your first sentence. In some way it comes across like an absurd respectively complacent use of explanatory and personal pages, which is unfortunate because personal pages may to some extent already raise the question whether they can harmonise with the intention of a welcoming and informative but also a serious respectively reliable encyclopaedia. lmaxmai, 18 September 2020

message

This page does not contain the TINC:approved stamp.

Perhaps SCREW will have something to say about this...Assistant N (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I love this page! That being said, there are a couple of things that "I" would change:

I have read and find this page quite amusing. That being said, there are a couple of things that "I" would change:

• 1) I would put the following banner on the actual article page:

That page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose.

• 2) I would also add another banner above that one that tells people that have a legitimate concern or complaint where they can go to get help

IF you have a serious and legitimate complaint, please follow the proper procedure and file it here.

Other than those two banners being put at the top of the page so that editors that have real issues and are getting desperate to find a solution don't mistake the page as something it is not. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:20, April 2, 2013‎ (UTC)

Who is "I"? Obviously not you, because you put the word in scare-quotes. Some people use quotation marks for "emphasis", but you're plainly too intelligent and well educated for that. --Somebody else (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your goal with this comment is, but I've added my signature so it is clear who made this post a year ago. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE mark this page as a parody. I came here unawares and was blindsided by what looks like the utter ruination of wikipedia. The page is maybe a little funny, but not worth the damage it does to Wikipedia's reputation when a naive user stumbles on it. Please be true to Wikipedia's mission and label this page for clarity. N0w8st8s (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)n0w8st8s

I too just came across this page for the first time and was a little confused. I looked at other humorous essays in Wikipedia:Essay_directory#Humorous_material and most seem to have a humor template, so I added one. I realize this might detract slightly from the overall satire of the page though and would welcome suggestions. UberKitten (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Abusive actions by Rouge admin. Possible conspiracy. Urgent action required.

A 2012 edit (diff) added "a rouge link" to a crucial document. I fear this may have been done by a sleeper sockpuppet of a Rouge admin. I have just now removed the worst effects of the change but the edit had remained in place so long that there may have been a conspiracy by other Rouge admins to protect this abusive activity. Action This Day. Thincat (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese translation

I have just (after being irritated at being effectively called a rogue admin by two users at Chinese Wikipedia) translated it to Chinese. (See zh:Wikipedia:胭脂派管理員.) Anyone with decent or better Chinese skills, please review to see if I got the spirit of it and make improvements. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That could be tricky, the whole page relies on the joke that some people get rouge and rogue confused. Are the two words equally similar in Chinese? ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really, so it's not a word for word translation - but that's why I'd appreciate some input. --Nlu (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Humorous

It's been said before but this page should have a tag on it that notes it is used for humorous purposes. Wikipedia is encyclopedic and not meant to adhere to some weird little club of Wikipedia editors. I'm going to add the tag at the top; since some moron gave you guys administrative privileges you'll probably ban me, but IDGA Flying F because I can change my IP in a matter of seconds. 2601:601:600:4E4C:1C8:AB08:BF02:F16A (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Declaring a conflict of interest and not using self-referencing citations ? BushelCandle (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Sure If Serious (Even Here on the Talk Page), But...

...if so, I thought it would be good to mention the following: I don't think "rouge" is intended (by people who use it seriously) as either a reference to makeup or a misspelling of "rogue". As the page on rouge mentions, it is French for "red", and as such was used by many self-declared communist governments. And many of these governments were often regarded as dictatorial, at least by their opposition (including many self-declared communists who viewed these governments as "not true communism"). For example, the Khmer Rouge was the government of the (in)famous dictator Pol Pot. I hope this helps somebody who might be confused. BlueGuy213 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@BlueGuy213: it is whatever you want it to be :D — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please consider the harm to Wikipedia that this page does. We should delete it

Warning: Fodder for an honest conversation below: What follows is opinion based on my 12 + years of WP experiences & observations, but I believe it to be accurate:

Let us consider that the most useful, constructive editors on WP make edits anywhere from 1-10 times per year only. They refrain from making edits in topics that they know nothing about. They only contribute to WP in topics or areas where they have in-depth knowledge. When they do make edits, they tend to be substantive, accretive, contribute to the utility of the article and to the knowledge imparted on the reader. Usually, they are sourced and duly referenced with proper citations. In short, they care. I would like to think that committed, engaged, knowledgeable people like this are exactly the kind of folks that Wikipedia, and we, should want contributing to it. They may make fewer edits, but these edits are of a higher quality and made mainly in areas where they possess actual real knowledge & understanding.

I'm quite sure, then, that for them it must be maddeningly irritating to be reverted by some 'Admin' (or other High-Volume-Editor ("HVE") who knows nothing about the subject. Let's be honest with each other; Admins & HVEs generally are rarely experts in a given topic. No one can be an expert in the thousands of topics that Admins oversee, and so many Admins hop around from one WP article to another - thousands of times across significantly broad & diverse topics without any in-depth knowledge of any - and remove, delete, slash, cut, and detract valuable information while, sometimes, let's be honest, a little drunk & delirious on the power ascribed to them with an administrative account. Some of these reckless Admins (and HVEs) really do make WP worse, let's admit it.

If an outsider were to judge it, the 3 revert & block rule might seem unfair (excluding against obvious vandals, of course). I'm not arguing that it's unnecessary, just that it's unfair. And appealing an undue block is simply way too much work, aggravation & effort for most. It's easier just to not contribute to WP in the first place. Is this really what we want? Do we really want to repel the best & brightest WP contributors?

The rub is that some (many?) Admins (and High-Volume-Editors - HVEs) seem to forget that the WP “guidelines” - which I know we all strive to apply & administer so religiously - are only suggested guidelines, not canon. And let us never forget the 5th Pillar : That Wikipedia actually has no firm rules, per se.

So at the end of the day, reasonableness must rule, and no Admin or HVE among us should remove smart, well-written, sourced edits that add to the encyclopedic knowledge imparted in the article, even if an Admin's dominion over a certain article feels challenged, threatened, discouraged or daunted. Or even if there is some 3rd tier, obscure, trivial WP guideline that might possibly, if we stretch, be somewhat applicable. We all need to start admitting that, too often, the above does happen...

As for this ROUGE ADMINS page: I completely agree with the growing voices of others who are suggesting that it sends the wrong message, and should be deleted. People don't come to WP for humour, anyway. There are plenty of places on the internet for that. This page is pointless.

Yes, we can disregard the feelings of dissenters and tell them to 'get a life,' or 'develop a sense of humour' but many who have ever felt victimized in one way or another find it difficult to laugh, even while others can. (Think about victims of hazing, harassment, rape, bullying, discrimination, etc..)

We need to also admit that on the editor/admin continuum, its us Admins who hold all the power. (Just as Priests, Teachers, Imams, or Bad-Bosses do... many of whom can & do exploit their subjects/subordinates/inferiors/students/employees, etc...) And who, really, is there to effectively oversee Admins? Should chickens really be in charge of the hen-house?

As others here have pointed out on this talk-page, let's not forget that in real-life "the customer is always right.” While we know in practice this isn't always literally true - it at least sends a message of over-arching respect. And on WP, editors are effectively the “customers” because without them, there would be no WP. We must never forget this.

So even though it's couched as 'satire' or 'humour', let's collectively grow up a bit, show some maturity, and delete this page, lest it give cause to those who call us (Admins) arrogant and condescending.

Are there any other intrepid, courageous Admins out there who are with me on this?  ::::::: NotionDisabuser (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• NotionDisabuser wrote:

  Let us consider ... constructive editors ... contribute to WP in topics or areas where they fully and completely have in-depth, unassailable knowledge... edits... substantive, accretive, interesting & well-written, contribute significantly to the utility of the article and to the knowledge imparted on the reader. Usually, they are sourced and duly referenced with proper citations.....
  I'm quite sure, then, that for them it must be maddeningly irritating to be reverted by some 'admin' who know knows nothing about the subject.

The second paragraph quoted does not follow the first. No reasonable admin would revert a constructive, in-depth, unassailable ... duly referenced with proper citiations, edit. My guess is that you have in mind WP:FRINGE and the error in your logic is with "proper" as in "proper citations". The "unassailable knowledge" part makes me think you may be a kook. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see various misconceptions about how Wikipedia works in the above post. Articles and edits are not only patrolled by administrators. Admins are also subject to policies and are pressured to hand their tools/privileges if they do not follow them. My impression is that those claimed "substantive, accretive, interesting & well-written" contributions were likely improper for inclusion in the encyclopedia if they really were removed. But no specific example was shown. Also, since edits must summarize sources, expert knowledge is rarely required to distinguish appropriate content from problematic edits. —PaleoNeonate – 01:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that the original comment was now changed to say "us admins", for whatever reason. If the goal is to have this humorous essay deleted, you can nominate it for deletion too, the discussion will determine if the page should be deleted. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• @PaleoNeonate: Of course I understand how Wikipedia works. But when you say Admins "are pressured to hand their tools/privileges if they do not follow," let's be honest with each other: Hand-over to whom? Other Admins, that's who. Isn't this chickens watching over the hen-house, as I mentioned above? And honestly, out of the tens of thousands of Admins, how many are actually desysopped each year? Exactly. I'd like to build some consensus here before nominating this page for deletion... Ideally, several other Admins will step-up, see the light and nominate it too. I don't want to be the lone soldier of conscious. (Are you listening SDY (talk), Jed Stuart (talk))? There's no point in nominating it only to have it fail and not be deleted, as has happened too many times in the past. Are our lives really so bad that we need this page for our humour? No, of course not. So let's just delete it. NotionDisabuser (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• • WP:SOCK: "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

See? This is exactly what I was talking about! Thank you SmokeyJoe for proving my point. There are too many Admins who, when they personally disagree with what has been written, or feel somewhat challenged or threatened, will do whatever it takes to find some, any (sometimes obscure) WP Guideline or Policy, no matter how awkward or poor the fit, simply to wield their power (undeservedly). WP:SOCK#LEGIT: Please don't check-user me or try to 'out' or ban me, or make ad-hominem attacks. I mean no disrespect, and I'm sorry if I struck a raw nerve, but as I warned above, I'm just trying to start an honest conversation. We should always encourage discussion, right? NotionDisabuser (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: Think of my words not as coming from an attacker but rather from your own adult child, who loves you, and just doesn't want to see any harm come from all of the drinking you've been doing ... NotionDisabuser (talk)

Since you are making the analogy, what adults tend to say kids who object to things they don't understand, is "you'll understand when you're older". This is often true with regard to humor. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I amended the above to "adult" child, as in 'intellectual equal.' Nonetheless, you've also proved my point: How many Admins are like you, and see themselves as the 'Parent', looking down condescendingly on all the young, infantile editors, who just need to be spanked and taught a lesson? A lot, I bet, right? Thank you Jytdog. We know how you feel. Anyone else have any input? NotionDisabuser (talk)

None of the editors who've commented here to your screed are admins. We're just ordinary registered editors, though with years of actual editing experience, and none of us can delete pages. There are only about 1,300 administrators on English Wikipedia, not "tens of thousands of Admins". None of those administrators is going to delete this page without a clear consensus to do so. They would be reverted, and possibly sanctioned in some way, if they did, as it would be an improper use of admin tools, the very thing you're railing against here. The only way to get this page deleted is by nominating it for deletion, and you've already refused to do that for the time being. This talk page is primarily for discussions directly related to editing the page itself, not for criticizing unnamed admins for vague, unspecified offences. It's certainly not the place for browbeating or intimidating an admin into deleting the page with condescending comments like "Let's grow a pair" or "Are our lives really so bad that we need this page for our humour? No, of course not. So let's just delete it." If you want it deleted, grow a pair yourself and nominate it for deletion now. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills, and that isn't what this page is for. - BilCat (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you BilCat. Let's think of this as an intervention, or Jerry McGuire inspired manifesto, rather than screed. WP, and we all, can emerge better if we simply introspect a little. Whether Admin or HVE (High-Volume-Editor) who unduly deletes and reverts a lot, the same concepts apply.

This page was nominated for deletion a few times in the past already... each time it was discussed & dismissed. I'm just trying to build some concensus here first, so that it doesn't fail again, by pointing out that a page like this causes way more harm than good, and makes us all - whether Admin or HVE - look really bad. And it hurts WP overall. Is this really what we all want? NotionDisabuser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course no one wants to harm Wikipedia, but you haven't proven that it does so. Merely stating your opinion isn't proof of anything. As to admins vs HVEs, this page has nothing to do with HVEs. They have their own cabal - see Wikipedia:Rouge editor that actually stands in opposition to this one. Good luck with your campaign to build a consensus, but that isn't the purpose this talk page. That's the purpose of a deletion nomination. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I won't be responding here further. Nothing you have written here is reasonable and you are just repeating yourself now. I imagine others are going to stop as well. Given that you have said you are SOCKING here, it is just likely as not that you have been indeffed for exactly this is kind of NOTHERE battering of talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog None of the assertions & allegations you've made are well-founded. Your refusal to discuss the merits, and willingness to so quickly & recklessly level ad-hominem attacks (exactly what I requested you refrain from) is also noted, and speaks loudly about your Wikipedia editing style.

You'd be well-served, in life and on Wikipedia, by refraining from rash, baseless presumptions. Thank you for stepping aside and letting cooler heads contribute constructively to the conversation. NotionDisabuser (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• NotionDisabuser, what are some of the pages where you believe this bad admin reverting has occurred, and what does this page have to do with it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion about whether or not this page harms Wikipedia by making it seem like most of the Admins and HVEs are here mocking everyone else who isn't one of them.... That's what this page does, doesn't it? NotionDisabuser (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

No, it doesn't, your vague protestations not withstanding. You've obviously had some bad experiences, but deleting this page won't make any difference. You refuse to be specific about where you've experienced these problems, which, since you value honesty, makes it seem like you're a blocked editor. You've claimed you're using a sock legitimately, so I'm going to Assume Good Faith, and accept your word at this time. But I do understand that there can be legitimate resons you don't want to get into specifics.

However, the page has obviously struck a bad chord with you, so perhaps dealing specifically with what content bothers you will help us understand your situation better. Beyond that, we're just going in circles here. - BilCat (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You're all missing the point. This page has nothing to do with me. Please stop trying to make it so, or trying to fruitlessly conjecture about my negative past experiences (I haven't had any) as you're chasing a red-herring. Perhaps we should look at the problem this way: Since people don't come to Wikipedia for humour [they come for knowledge and information] what is the benefit of this page? As many before me (above, and in the deletion comments) have pointed out, this page is offensive to many (equates Christians, Zionists, Gays, etc... with "forces of darkness", it is sarcastic, and is meant - it's obvious - to mock those who aren't expert or high-frequency editors for the many perceived mistakes they are often alleged to make... Isn't this like the ruling class in the book Animal Farm by George Orwell looking down, mockingly, and laughing at all the other lowly peon animals? If you don't agree, please don't attack me... Just point out intelligently why you think this isn't the case. Thanks. NotionDisabuser (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC).

@NotionDisabuser: This page isn't meant to mock genuine newbie readers/editors who are here to just learn from an encyclopedia, or to participate in building an encyclopedia, and as far as I can tell it doesn't. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's meant as humor for editors who continually deal with users who are here to push a personal agenda of some sort that is contrary to Wikipedia's stated purposes. Such u$ers, thankfully, are a substantial minority of Wikipedia users. Having dealt with such users before, I find the page hilarious. I wasn't involved in this discussion, for example, but if User:ForexAficionado were to see this page, his reaction would probably be similar to yours. Unfortunately for that user, their additions were rightly removed from that article, especially as the additions had the appearance of self-promotion. If that user is offended by this page, they really need to step back, and examine their own behavior and motives in contributing to Wikipedia. Such a user really has no place on Wikipedia as long as they continue to add such material. However, if they're willing to comply with Wikipedia's standards and policies, and add well-sourced, neutrally written content, they won't encounter much, if any, resistance from Rouge Admins. In fact, they'll find such admins, and similarly minded HVEs, to be their greatest supporters, as Wikipedia needs more editors who can write well-sourced, neutrally written content. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend that any editor who wants to contribute to Wikipedia in topics or areas where they have in-depth knowledge read Wikipedia:Expert editors. If they follow those suggestions, they will probably find their editing on Wikipedia to be a more rewarding experience, and will improve Wikipedia to the benefit of our readers, who ultimately are our customers. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

* Clearly, you've missed the entire point I endeavoured to make: No editors on WP should be mocking anyone, no matter what, under any circumstance. It's just common-courtesy, common-sense, and general respect for others. Obviously, you refuse to agree. So be it. I refuse to fight intransigence. Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P4 Good luck. NotionDisabuser (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This article probably was quite humorous when first published. One can seriously imagine the Admins of 200x scoffing at the thought of a 'cabal of rouge/rogue admins'. But my god, look at the state of things now. This article was unintentionally prophetic. RandomGnome (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The great conspiracy?

I couldn't notice the fact that this page talks about "the great conspiracy" to hide the Truth. I understand the idea that powerful people and organizations don't want people to know parts of the truth, but it's not like there's one conspiracy, but a lot of them, most of them aren't really great. shouldn't it say that? Fr.dror (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it largely does, afterall it gives a choice of dozens of common targets. ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)