Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Adminitis


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminitis
I think this page is counter-productive to the community. While I'm sure it was made in good faith, probably by someone who has had negative experiences dealing with admins, I believe its consequences are more negative than positive. Maybe I just haven't been looking at enough talk pages, but I've never heard of the term "adminitis".

The page gives the impression that being an administrator is basically tantamount to being a jerk. This only strains the bond of trust that non-admins give to admins, and that trust is absolutely necessary for the community to operate harmoniously. And in any case, it's mostly redundant to WP:DICK. Coffee 10:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: As per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming. This is humor, and obviously read as such. It's not an attack, it's not being a dick; it's a cautionary tale and well worth the read for admins (or indeed anyone who exhibits the anti-wiki symptoms). --Durin 13:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: WikiHumour is tolerated in the User: and Wikipedia: namespaces; the original author is a former admin "promoted back to user". Physchim62 (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the tag, now keep.  Lord  ViD  15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest both Coffee and LordVid go get some proffessional help, both are displaying clear symptoms of Adminitis, as per the page :-) Hence, Notable, Observed in the wild (as per this page :-P ), and Keep ;-) Kim Bruning 17:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Adminitis? Me? Preposterous! I'mRightAndYou'reWrongDon'tDareFuckingOpposeMe, Kim.  Lord  ViD 20:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; it's actually important reading for all admins. Oh, and it's funny too.  Antandrus  (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Irony++. That is, keep. Good humor, and the irony of nominating this for MFD. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 19:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't be ridiculous - David Gerard 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You have adminitis. (Political keep). :p Esteffect 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Antandrus; however, it is of course quite easy to be uncivil in linking to this page. Btw, I'm a non-admin. Septentrionalis 19:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I note that nearly every major contributor to this page is, or was, an admin &mdash; so "probably by someone who has had negative experiences dealing with admins" isn't quite the case.  "Somebody who is worried about the possibility of inflicting negative experiences on others", well, maybe. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Funny, and helpful to Wikipedia, by reminding folks to occasionally detach from self-importance and breathe. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, Keep. Don't know why this was listed for deletion. Lovely page. -ZeroTalk 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral not that it will matter, but I think this type of pure sarcasm might be something more for Meta, Uncyclopedia, etc. While this one works... a whole lot of copycats would probably be a bad idea, you know?  --W.marsh 16:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The irony is that it's not sarcasm. It's actually "ha ha only serious" Kim Bruning 13:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and categorize as Category:Wikipedia humor. Stifle 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not again. Anytime I try to write something useful, someone comes along and categorises it as humor. Just because it's funny, doesn't mean it's not useful or true, darnit! If you insist on putting the humor cat on, I shall remove every last whit of humor from the page till you cry just by glancing at the wikilink! Kim Bruning 13:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Except User:Durin actually did the work on this. Hmph. Kim Bruning 13:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to meta. I'm suffering from this and I'm not even an admin. Alph a x &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bad-faith article, WP:BALLS if this gets kept. Articles like this just make me depressed! Everyone here has some nerves to vote Keep, what's wrong with you people? Bunch of n00bs, this page breaks policy. Page is definitely not funny. WP:POINT. ,,l,(>.<),l,, .. :P  jaco  plane  13:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't take that seriously btw.  jaco plane  14:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Adminitis? Kim Bruning 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah :)  jaco plane  14:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but put the humor tag on it. David | Talk 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that if you do so, I shall purge all humor from the page. it is ha ha only serious. If you push your luck, you'll be left with only the serious. :-P Kim Bruning 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a very - erm - unusual thing to do. If you did it I might think you had contracted some new psychological condition as a result of your editing of Wikipedia, which is a strange thing indeed. David | Talk 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * >Snicker< Kim Bruning 11:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL this is excellent stuff!  Grue   19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. After I speedied it, I was reading some of the symptoms which really struck home. Chagrinned, I undeleted it. --maru (talk) contribs 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, though moving to meta might be a good idea, too Oliphaunt 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep LOL Brian | (Talk) 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep William M. Connolley 11:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - even if you must put the humor tag on it - Introvert  ~?  08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.