 | This is ahumorousessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and is made to be humorous. This page is not one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.This essay isn't meant to be taken seriously. |
 | This isnot adecree by theSupreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW).It isnonobligatory and shouldn't be considered equivalent to areligious belief that all users are to follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revisiondoesnot reflectSupreme Cabalism because that would upset theGrand Cabal. When in doubt,pleaseignore thetalk page andjust keep reverting. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Editors have been known to annoy another editor or admin, for having the audacity toactuallywork toward building an encyclopedia,not being cogs in a bureaucracy, playing a MMORPG, arguing on a webboard, or making pals on a social networking site. Some editors really treat their time here as public-interest volunteer work, not a political sim, and this obviously justwill not do. |
Rouge editors (also known asrouge users orrouge non-admins)[1] are acabal of editors, governed bythe Five Pillars of Untruth, whostand inthe way of what must surely be Wikipedia's true purpose, which is tomake up,catalogue, andenforce asmany obscure rules as possible, thenbrow-beat any so-called "intelligent" contributors mercilessly toconform andgrovel, until theygive up in disgust and leave the project to its proper, good-old-boys'-clubecho chamber. No rouge editor hasever seenanything posted onUncyclopedia.
| “ | If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. | ” |
| — The original formulation[2] of what becameWP:IAR. (perfected today to soulless economy by rouge admins) | ||
Rouge editors are the non-administrativeyin to theyang ofrouge admins. They annoy all admins, includingJimbo, as well as other editors, because – although not outrightwikianarchists – theyjust don't need no stinking[3]mob-rule permissions or admonitions. They may also be fairly easilyhounded into violating #2 of theWikipedia:Trifecta; this is a good way to smoke them out.
Rouge editors differ from rougeadmins primarily innot having faith in the latters'Five Pillars of Evil. And in beingpowerless non-admins. And in probablynot giving a damn about thecrucial changes you and your friendsdemand in their behavior.
Rouge editors and rouge admins are, however, united in opposition totrolls,vandals,PoV-pushers,fringe nonsense,unsourced claims, andtotal bollocks. They simply think you're probably in one of these buckets, andreally don't want to hear it.
Lack ofadministrative prerogative or otherprivileges doesn't stop the collective menace of rouge editors from editingmillions of articles, in ways that sometimesdon't fullyadhere to the exactletter of every rule.
The frightening thing is,every new editor is a rouge editor until rounded up andverbally whipped into submission. Alllong-term regulars have aduty to domesticate andcull this herd. Rouge editors are especially athreat toWikiProjects' andGA/FA authors'rightful control overtheir own articles.Suppression of rouge editors byruthless enforcement of policies and guidelines is thereforevital, especially when you're certainyour policy interpretation is more correct oryour version of an article is the right one.
Rouge editors, even after several warnings from admins, may just say, "oh,I didn't hear that". This is especially frustrating for admins who have it out for the rouge editor and are deeply involved in the background of the dispute, and thusclearly know best, and should treat any back-talk asdisruptive editing. Spokescreatures for the Rouge Editor Cabal have pledged to continue their passive-resistancecampaign, oftendentiously volunteering to edit without being hassled over trivial matters, until April 12, 2056. On this date, rouge editors plan toimmanentize the long-forseenWikiapocalypse with anArbCom case involving all rouge admins at once,[4] although the editors promise toignore ArbCom regardless of the case's outcome. They will also vandalize the userpages of all rouge admins on April Fools' Day,[5]and get away with it.
To identify yourself as a rouge editor, just act like one and go about your editing business. Or add one of the following userboxes to your userpage (or better yet tosomeone else's):
{{User rouge editor}} gives you:
 | This user is a Rouge editor. |
{{User:UBX/rougeeditor}} yields:
 | This user is a Rouge editor. |
{{User:Adolphus79/UBX/RougeNonAdmin}} provides:
| RNA | This user is arouge non-admin |
Note that{{User rouge wannabe}}, for rouge-admin hopefuls, is distinct (and not necessarily compatible, unless you aredeeply rouge andjust here for the entertainment value).
Known instances of rouge editor grafitti, a.k.a.vandalism!
_1959.jpg)
