- Category:Rouge admins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)
I have removed from the category several users who did not choose for themselves to have the category after the UCFD. FCYTravis, Daniel, regardless of anything else you do not have the right to make this decision for them. —Random832 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because people are ignoring the consensus anyway, and no-one has the balls to do anything about it. —Random832 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not acceptable for users to add themselves to a category that has been deleted at UCFD. If the consensus is (as some have claimed) that it is acceptable for users to add themselves to this category, then that consensus is the basis for overturning the deletion entirely. —Random832 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest creation with __HIDDENCAT__ - that'll show 'em (just kidding really) —Random832 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, I do think it should be overturned as no consensus from the original discussion (and no hiddencat nonsense), but I stand by my original vote from that discussion, speedy rename to "Wikipedian Rouge admins". —Random832 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and make it policy to disallow users re-adding UCFD'd or DRV-endorsed user categories to their user page, as this disrupts the function of Special:Wantedcategories by making people think such categories should be recreated. VegaDark (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care if the category remains deleted or not, but such a policy seems a bit extreme. A red-linked category causes zero disruption, and being included on Special:Wantedcategories is accurate. It's a wanted category, even if it shouldn't be recreated. The talk page for Special:Wantedcategories specifically says some redlinked categories should not be recreated. - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it is a bit extreme, and I wish it wouldn't have to come to that, but I have had to delete several recreations of such categories due to the mistaken belief that categories with users in them means to create them. In that sense, it is causing some disruption. VegaDark (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose we have different definitions of disruption, but as I said, I don't care either way. - auburnpilot talk 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A red-linked category causes precisely as much disruption as the same category caused as a blue link. If there wasn't a problem with it, the UCfD wouldn't have been closed as delete. —Random832 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true. Before it was deleted, the category page was included within other categories, and could be found using the category tree. Now, it is an orphaned category that does precisely nothing, and can only be found on the pages categorized within it. What disruption is being caused? This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. - auburnpilot talk 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It causes a rather pointy disruption in a way of thumbing your nose at the trust and consensus of the community. Rather than work with the community via DRV or maybe to discuss a way of dealing with the concerns brought up in the UCFD, the deliberate adding (or reverting) oneself into the category is a short and sweet way of saying you don't care about the views of the community. In addition to being disruptive, it is also rather disheartening behavior coming from folks that are suppose to be in a position of trust. The fact that the functionality of the category is still present, still providing a list of "Rouge admins" when you click on the red link, means that deleting it is useless. The fact that consensus can be circumnavigated so easily, much to the abandonment of discussion and consensus building, means that the views of the community (in contrast to the views of a few "rouge") are rather useless as well. AgneCheese/Wine 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then a policy discussion is what you want, not DRV. - auburnpilot talk 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But if overturning the deletion will lessen the disruption to the community, then that is something to discuss in the DRV. In a bit of irony, consensus in DRV could determine that consensus means very little and lessening the disruption from a small group of admins will be in the better interest of the community. AgneCheese/Wine 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion not because of people adding themselves back in deleted cats but, staying on subject here of why it was deleted in the first place, it was a joke cat that became disuptive and nolonger a joke. So endorse it for the same reasons it was deleted in the first place. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is absolutely no policy which says users cannot have redlinked categories on their page. DRV is not for creation of new policy. The only "disruption" I see here are the repeated attempts to exterminate any sense of humor and fun from a few rouge admins. FCYTravis (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true but disruption and WP:POINT are rather vaguely define with not every possible WP:BEANS-like exhibit being detailed. However, a potentially valid reason for considering overturning the category deletion is whether or not it will lessen the disruption and unbecoming behavior by a group of admin who seem to have little regard for consensus and community. If discussion steers towards that being in the best interest of the community, then the DRV is serving its intended purpose. AgneCheese/Wine 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above comment assumes facts not in evidence; viz, that "Rouge admins" is somehow disruptive. You have yet to explain what is disruptive about having the words "Category:Rouge admins" on my userpage. You are making a circular argument; "We have to delete the category because it's causing disruption because people don't like that we're trying to delete the category!" FCYTravis (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The good faith concerns expressed in the original deletion discussion says alot but probably most troubling is the complete disregard of community and consensus by people that are in a position of trust. As I mention below, there are real life parallels to this type of circumstance. In some respects admins are kinda like "HR Managers" (especially with their use of blocks, page protections and other responses to vandalism, edit war & civility) in that the well being of the community should be (without any doubt) their number one priority. In cases like this and my "restaurant joke" example below, there are clear and definitive actions that people in positions of trust should take. The benefits of having a red link on your userpage, just like the fun and "benefit" of having a lewd inside joke among co-workers, are FAR out weighed by benefits of consensus building and maintaining community trust that admins will work for the community's interest and not their own. Please think about that and think what benefit to the community your red link serves. AgneCheese/Wine 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Your reference to a "circular argument" has a broken link in that circle. If you review my comment above, I start out by saying "a potentially valid reason for considering overturning the category deletion" is potentially the amount of disruption that a few admins are causing. I was essentially saying that it may be better not to have the cat deleted if the discussion determines that consensus essentially means nothing and maintaining "functional" but deleted category is fine. While I don't wholeheartedly endorse that view, I do recognize that it is a potentially valid reason for having the deletion overturn. I suppose it is more of a polygon argument. :) AgneCheese/Wine 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - Here's a question. This blew up because non-admins were adding themselves to this category. What happens (is it the same problem) if a non-admin adds themselves to the cat as a red link? Avruch T 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (e.c. X 2) on the general principle of WP:WDYC and the fact that the WP:UCFD discussion had, in fact, failed to obtain consensus. Strongest possible wish
oppose on the proposed rule prohibiting adding to a red-linked category in userspace, as a blatant instance of WP:CREEP. that people would stop caring so much about what other people do in their own userspace. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there's not a written rule against it doesn't mean you're allowed to do it. And just because a written rule would be WP:CREEP doesn't mean that someone telling you you're not allowed to do it is guilty of WP:CREEP. It has always been the long-standing practice that, well, delete means delete. —Random832 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (general reply but relevant to IG comment) The WDYC essay is interesting. While I didn't really participate much in the original deletion discussion, I will note here what I probably would have said. The reason to care is community with every "fun page", signature and user cat being considered on the merit of how it helps or hurts the community. There were valid arguments for how the category originally helped the community but there were also valid arguments for how it can hurt--promoting an aura of exclusivity, creating confusion on whether adminship is "no big deal"/a "joke" or something else, etc. As I read the original discussion a "Real World" parallel sprung to mind about a work environment that I was in many moons ago. At this restaurant, the male servers developed a "system" to gauge the "hotness" of the patrons or how many beers they would need to want to sleep with them. Even though I'm a woman, I actually thought it was pretty funny and when my "gaydar" spotted a fellow lesbian, I would chime into the boys how many beers I think the woman would need in order to sleep with them. It was very much an "inside joke" that never spread beyond words and comments. However, some of the other female co-workers heard about the joke and the rating system and began to feel uncomfortable at work. Even though they weren't being "rated" or "commented upon", the atmosphere that the "joke" created was (at least to them), unwelcoming and not very conducive to a pleasant work environment. Anyone that knows a little about HR can probably guess what happened after that. "Joke" or no joke, the community of the work environment was the most important consideration and if a "joke" makes your fellow workers uncomfortable (regardless of intent), then it is not appropriate and is actually harmful. THIS is a similar circumstance. Fellow Wikipedians have "good faith" concerns about the detrimental effects that this "joke" can have on the community. It is fostering an environment that is not conducive or pleasant to create an encyclopedia in--even if that is not the intent of ANYONE in that cat (which I truly believe is the case). Despite its original innocence and well meaning existence, it is having an adverse affect on the community and therefore it is in the best interest to just let it go. Holding steadfast to keeping a redlink cat, despite consensus and good faith concerns, is actually more harmful and more of a reason to care about this discussion. AgneCheese/Wine 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- After the deletion there were 17 pages remaining in the cat, I attempted to help de-populate those remaining links by removing them, they were all of course reverted back and an additional Admin was added. Thats humorous!. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that this stupid insistence on keeping redlinked categories not only trashes the wanted categories function, but a related occurrence resulted in yet another round of pointless drama over BetacommandBot, which was blocked for (ZOMG) deleting redlinked categories from a user page. It was another stupid block of that bot for accomplishing a task for which it was approved. Horologium (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BetacommandBot was blocked for removing categories that had _not_ had deletion discussions from _articles_, which is not part of its approved task. Someone else decided to use this as an opportunity to bitch at him for removing this category as part of its approved task. —Random832 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Sorry to interrupt the discussion like this, but I think this is an important point. This idea that people are allowed to add themselves to categories that have been deleted is a novel one. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this were Category:Fascist Wikipedians or *picks a UCfD at random* Category:Wikipedians who use dual boot configurations or Category:RickK Fans, or any of hundreds of other categories that have been deleted. The user would simply be told that they can't be in that category and pointed to the discussion where it was deleted. To say otherwise is to say UCfD is a dead letter. watch this space! —Random832 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - consensus was judged correctly, since none of the arguments (primarily "It's funny" and "It's harmless") for retention stand up to scrutiny. The project page is humorous, not the context-less category (directory of users). As for the category's supposed harmlessness, a category that is the source of so much drama and wasted time and effort is most definitely not harmless. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Sacré merde! Does this mean I have to take down my userbox? Do people not understand the difference between a Rouge admin"" and a rogue admin? I think it's funny and frankly do not understand the urge to delete the thing. I had no idea the category was being considered for deletion. Dlohcierekim 03:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - There is a rather large glaring box at the top of the WP:UCFD page making it clear (I would hope) that userboxes and user catgories are not the same thing. categories are not in userspace or in mainspace. They are in category space. That said, I "think" we're well aware that this can confuse those who casually read this encyclopedia. So we attempt to tag the top of categories which are not directly used for mainspace.
- Second, categories are a dual construct. They are both a page and a grouping of pages (enacted through technical action). At WP:CFD (note that I'm not saying WP:UCFD) the current consensus which has been going on as long as that page has existed is that when a category discussion is closed as "delete", that means the category is to be depopulated too.
- UCFD follows the same rules
- I suppose this current set of nonsense (Yes, I said nonsense), is because I am getting tired of all the drama concerning some admins who, in their strong sense of IWANTIT are choosing to ignore a CFD closure in any way they can. As Horologium notes above, if these were general editors, they would immediately get bitten, likely by these selfsame ROUGE ADMINS. A double standard? yes. Ridiculous? yes. Do I really care much anymore? I don't know. So I haven't been reverting these redlinks, though I probably should have.
- I do think there should be a consistancy. Either we open up the category system to anything, or we follow the current convention to not. And "humourous" categories currently are not. The userbox, and the Wikipedia-space page should be enough for the humour. - jc37 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - No need for UCFD Act 2. I can't see why anyone would want to restore this category, to be honest, other than as a protest exercise.--WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - and excommunicate anyone who recreates this confounded category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion As much as I disagree, consensus was reached. And we still have WP:Rouge admin. Still don't see what the fuss is about. Someone got blocked over this? And I'm sorry if others don't get the humor of basically describing oneself as radical or extreme for upholding consensus driven policies. I haven't taken as much abuse as some for my "unreasonableness" in deleting such rubbish as Dalmatian theory. Others have gotten more than I. One need only read the edit summaries here to appreciate the irony of the thing. <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as a sensible closure based on a sound evaluation of all arguments. Everything beyond the deletion and initial removal of the category isn't really an issue for DRV, but rather for other venues such as RfC.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
