Wikipedia talk:What administrators do

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

Archive 1

Further compromise

I'm a tad confused as to just how an essay got rejected, but I'm going to continue working towards a compromise as I've been trying to do. I think much of this confusion only results from poor diction on my part and simply a poor title. Therefore I have renamed it and I am working on further changes. Cowman109^Talk 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More issues

Are there any further issues with the current state of the article? I'd rather have a point to start off from before continuing to expand, and eventually I might stuff it in the see also section of WP:ADMIN. Cowman109^Talk 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this article is bound to either be a fork of the various established policies and guideline pages or to remain an offensive statement calling for more bull less writing, but that's just me and I may be mistaken.

May I suggest that you consider one more time keeping it in your userspace. Nothing prevents you from posting a link from your userpage to your thoughts on important matters, just like, say, Geogre does. Please consider how firmly thus essay is rejected by most everyone. I really do not want to force the MfD here. Userfication seems the best abd totally flawless option. --Irpen 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the misconceptions about administrators need to be addressed. An essay is precisely the tool to outline such. Please file a MFD if you do not wish the essay to remain, as this was originally userfied with the intent to move it to an essay. Cowman109^Talk 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some misconceptions to be addressed exist on IRC rather than at Wikipedia, but perhaps you disagree. Anyway, the article is MfDed here. I don't insist on deletion at all and suggest userfying it, as I stated. --Irpen 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archival

I archived the old discussion as it is irrelevant to the current state of the essay. If there are further concerns, please outline them here. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD debate closed on 2 October 2006. The result was No Consensus/default keep. Xoloz 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, at least, as per points expressed above, in the archive and at the MfD debate, there are enough people who dispute this assay in good faith as contradicting the spirit of Wikipedia. I will mark it as such. Cowman109 is free to move this back to his userspace and remove the tag there as he sees fit. --Irpen 16:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the factual accuracy questioned template as that is for articles, not for essays. You are welcome to disagree with the essay, but such templates are inappropriate as they are meant to clear up unsourced information, not an essay you may disagree with. You're more than welcome to create a Wikipedia:Administrators are here to build the encyclopedia and link it in the see also section as an essay to refute this one, but please, this essay is not doing you any harm. It is meant to be an expression of opinion, and as such it is. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]