Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What administrators do


 * 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 No consensus/default keep. Sean Black has a very good point; while it wasn't necessarily "improper" to bring this matter to MfD, it is now clear that no one really wants this page deleted outright. On the question of userfication vs. wiki-space, there is no consensus here yet, but that consensus could just as easily (if not more easily) develop at a talk page discussion. Finally, the sentiment that essays should generally be left alone (as long as they are good-faith, well-written, and reasonable) seems persuasive. In short, nothing more for MfD to do here; if discussion on this needs to continue, it's best to move it elsewhere. Xoloz 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What administrators do
Originally created as Administrators are not here to build the encyclopedia the essay under the current name still carries the same message. The essay was met by a strong opposition (see talk) and the userfying by the author is suggested. Irpen 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * userfy or delete but move out of Wikipedia namespace. --Irpen 23:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy as per Irpen. Badbilltucker 23:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment No vote, though if many suggest deletion, I'd urge consideration of the rejected template instead of deleting this page. A deleted proposal can be re-made under different names by different people many times and never goes anywhere. If the essay is rejected instead, it stays there and you can point to the talkpage, showing why it was rejected instead of having to deal with the same attitudes and issues repeatedly. See this edit for someone else's rephrasing of this idea. ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Essays are meant to carry opinions (see Category:Wikipedia essays) and are expected to have opposition for that reason. This essay serves as a reminder that administrators who work in areas other than the main article namespace are just as important as those who do. Rejected templates are for policy proposals, unless I'm mistaken, and the essay does not propose any policy. I am still more than willing to adjust the essay to be more acceptable, but this MFD comes 3 days after the page's creation before any sort of stable version of the essay was reached. It would be much more productive to focus on what specific parts of the essay editors have issues with rather than attempt to get the whole thing userfied. Cowman109 Talk 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents you from working towards the stable version in your userspace where this safely rested until in result of an IRC discussions it was moved to Wikipedia space. I only suggest you move it back for now. --Irpen 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the same essay no matter what the namespace it's in - I'm a tad confused as to how it's more appropriate just with a different word before the colon to signify that it's a work in progress, when it will inevitably get put back into the Wikipedia namespace. Just about the entirety of the original essay has been reworked such that it should not be so inappropriate any longer. The previous requests for userfying were done before I had a chance to address more of the concerns, and they have now been addressed. Cowman109 Talk 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is silly, you can't "reject" an essay &mdash; by definition, it represents an opinion that some hold, and that others don't hold. That's all. There's no reason to delete this; not to mention the fact that moving this to a subpage of Cowman's userpage, as the nominator seems to want to do (correct me if I'm wrong) should not be handled by MFD at all (seeing how, as it is, miscellany for deletion) and should instead either be brought up on the talk page, or simply done. As such, this should be kept, obviously without predijuce to any further modifications and/or renaming.--SB | T 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as userfication being "simply done" as you propose, I don't see it would be appropriate for me or anyone else to move it Cowman109's userspace. He can do it any time. He insists on keeping it in the project space while I strongly see no place for it in the project space. That's how MfD gets to the picture. --Irpen 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy - unsuitable for wikipedia namespace abakharev 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - After reading the talk page, I think that most of the objection to this essay is an emotional reaction to its previous name. I don't like that name either, but I don't see anything objectionable about its current name or content. It's a reality that administrators spend a lot less of their time editing articles and a lot more time on administrative and janitorial issues, and I think that's fine. It still adds to the encyclopedia. This is an essay, so it's not binding to anyone, nor does everyone have to agree with it. If it looked like Cowman109 was the only person in support of it, I would agree with a delete, but I think that there are many other people who agree with the principles of this essay. --Cswrye 16:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an essay. Many users disagreeing with Cowman109 doesn't mean that it should be deleted or rejected (like an unpopular guideline might be); it's OK for an essay to state a POV as that's what essays are for. --ais523 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. In just an essay, and we've got a bunch of 'em, so why delete or userfy exacly this page and keep the others? Max S em 20:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy. (I wonder what will happen next.) - David Gerard 07:09, 2 October 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.