Wikipedia:ROUGE : Soft.lk - A Premium Software Developers - Meet one of the most powerful and intuitive POS systems for retail in Sri Lanka

21 Aug, 2019
By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:ROUGE

Rouge admins are a cabal of administrators, governed by five pillars of evil and the Five Pillars of Untruth, who stand in the way of Wikipedia's true purpose, which is to disseminate new and controversial theories, publicise hitherto suppressed views about establishment figures, document the stories which the...

Please check all that apply:

☐ agnosticist
☐ American
☐ anti-consumer
☐ atheist
☐ Big Pharma
☐ Big Tech
☐ bloated
☐ bummer
☐ capitalist
☐ Chinese
☐ Christian
☐ closed-source
☐ copyrighted
☐ corrupt
☐ corporate
☐ dark suited
☐ discordianist
☐ DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)
☐ deep state
☐ extinguishist
☐ enviromentalist
☐ evil
☐ fake
☐ far-left
☐ far-center
☐ far-right
☐ fascist
☐ feminist
☐ gay
☐ globalist
☐ government
☐ humanist
☐ Illuminati
☐ Islamist
☐ lesbian
☐ locked down
☐ Marxist–Leninist
☐ Marxist–Lennonist
☐ Masonic
☐ misandrist
☐ misogynist
☐ monopolistic
☐ non-free
☐ plutocratic
☐ proprietary
☐ reptilian
☐ robotic
☐ Russian
☐ SaaSS
☐ satanist
☐ secular
☐ social justice warrior
☐ subscription service
☐ technoglobalist
☐ Transsexuality
☐ stupid
☐ straight
☐ walled garden
☐ whitey
☐ woke
☐ Zionist
☐ _________

... news media refuse to touch, suppress small businesspeople from establishing ginger monopolies as the first step to attaining secular galaxial government, and bring to public attention the “Holy Grail” which the said groups refuse to endorse.

When the fearless blogger-after-truth stands alone before the might of Vested Interests and only Wikipedia can bring The Truth™ to the teeming multitudes, when the web forum hits thirty members and just 9,970 more will earn the webmaster a cent a click from banner advertising, when I.K. Funk & Company rejects the call for resignation of the entire board backed by the holder of nearly two shares of common stock—that is when Wikipedia’s purpose can at last be realised.

And then it is that the Rouge admins step in. Based on the flimsiest of grounds—policy and consensus—they require not The Truth™ but that which is verifiable. They will not accept the word of anyone other than a reliable source, no matter that all such sources are part of the great conspiracy to suppress The Truth™. They further demand that the dissenting opinions of those who believe The Truth™ to be complete bollocks be given due weight. And they delete, delete, delete. Heedless of the hordes of anonymous keep votes at Articles for Deletion, discounting the legion of brand new users who have registered just so they can ensure The Truth™ is told, they accept without question the assurance of fellow Rouge admins that The Truth™ is unverifiable, incapable of being covered neutrally, unsourced and unproven. They resist perfectly reasonable demands for shrubberies before critical content can be added. And when more brand new users come along to rectify the situation by creating new articles with much better titles, the Rouge admins race right back in to delete them again, to block the new users and lock the articles.

All the pleading in the world falls on deaf ears. It’s as though the Rouge admins do not realise that when Jimbo said that neutral point of view was non-negotiable, he didn’t mean it to stop The Truth™ being told! And, well, even if he has stepped in numerous times to, um, enforce it, it’s only because… the Rouge admins have poisoned his mind and misrepresented the situation on IRC. Or something.

The Rouge admins, scourge of fair play, defenders of the powerful, in the pay of either Corporate America or Chinese Communists (or more likely both)—they insidiously subvert Wikipedia’s true mission, the mission Jimbo surely had in mind and simply forgot to add to the five pillars. Damn those Rouge admins!

Although one may initially think that the Rouge admins are so named due to their well-documented red-loving proclivities, or sneaky and renegade nature (similar to, for example, the rogue character class in Dungeons & Dragons), in fact, their name stems from the red or pink makeup they use to add colour to their cheeks. In contrast, rogue administrators wear only aftershave. And clothing. Once in a while.

Beware the Flag of the Rouge admin!
Rouge admins: known either for their uncanny makeup skills or POV-pushers' inability to spell "rogue"
Bar du Admin Rouge, legendary home of the rouge admins. Note that sobriety is not a relevant issue as Rouge admins are immune to intoxication because they are never sober.
Something Rouge, note the disguised rouge admin browsing.

Notes

^ The list of affiliation groups may be expanded to suit individual taste, for example those people who see lecherousness as the meaning of life and those people who recognize chaos, discord, and dissent as valid and desirable qualities.
^ Ginger monopolies is the unstated but exceedingly crafty plan by several small businesspeople loosely affiliated with the E of A to corner the market in growing jolly good ginger; it is unclear if the Imperium is officially sanctioning this undertaking, and we may never fully know because a USDA probe team that had been 24/7 monitoring unmanned drones over Sydney (confining its activities pretty rigorously, sort of, to E of A and not the surrounding macrostate's territory) has suffered intermittent power failures to its critical computing infrastructure as part of sequestration requirements foisted upon the US as it went over the fiscal cliff as of March 2013.
^ Corporate America, please contact the original author for paying-in details. All major currencies accepted, we apologise that receipts cannot be provided.

External links

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Levels of consensus Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta We are absolutely here to right great wrongs Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Emptying categories out of process Follow the leader How the presumption of notability works How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Editors' pronouns Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A thank you never hurts A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia clichés Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Be pragmatic Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Wikipedia:Because I can Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Hate is disruptive Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No queerphobia No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Rouge_admin&oldid=1256855140"

Wikipedia:ROUGE

See also

Notes

External links