Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator

This WikiProject is defunct.
Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.

If you feel this project may be worth reviving, please discuss with related projects first. Feel free to change this tag if the parameters were changed in error.

WikiProject
Administrator
(subpages)

General information
Main project page	talk
Community de-adminship
WP:CDA draft RfC	talk
Draft Guide to De-Adminship	talk
Related Pages
Wikipedia:Administrators	talk
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard	talk
edit · changes

This project seeks to address the role of administrators and their interaction with other editors by consolidating discussion of relevant issues.

Wikipedia is a large and growing community and it is important that we continue to advance the primary function of Wikipedia. The role of our administrators must evolve, and as a community we must embrace reform and appropriate improvements.

Administratorship

Growth and change

Historic

Proposals

Members

Any user is welcome to join the project; Admin status is not necessary
You may place {{User WikiProject Administrator}} on your user page to display the following userbox:

This user was a member of WikiProject Administrator, a group of editors who sought to address the role of administrators and their interaction with other editors.

I think we need to all get on the same page. — Ched : ? 03:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have some ideas. No one will support them, but I have them nonetheless. --Jayron32 04:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell.--Tznkai (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--El on ka 04:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 05:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. → ROUX ₪ 05:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an honor and a privilege to be a member of this distinguished group of reformers. I have always felt that I had a very important role to play in shaping our admins to my liking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. (ec'ed with CoM, and his flowery statement makes mine feel really inadequate...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeeha. Pete (talk)
why not Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Jay said. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since we need to be on the same page, and since I wasn't invited. Hiding T 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"They will not let my play run, yet they steal my thunder!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Oh, and what Jayron said. ;) JamieS93 12:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepscases (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super interested in admin role in arbitration enforcement. Think it needs to be revamped. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea. Let's see how it turns out. ceranthor 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the deeply entrenched culture of unaccountability among the admin corps(e), I seriously doubt any positive change will result from this exercise. But without some effort it is certain that nothing positive will happen. I'm willing to help the effort and to be pleasantly surprised.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. — Jake Wartenberg 23:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback talk 23:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can count on my steel!. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to add, but everyone seems to be signing up and I don't want to feel left out. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
>David Shankbone 15:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an admin, but hold opinions on the subject. prashanthns (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of being a chapter behind. Not that I'll probably do much about it, but I'm still tired of it. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never believed that Administrative Cabals really existed until I just found out that Administrative Cabals really exist!--Buster7 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent initiative. Tony (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long overdue. Let's get something in place that improves and standardizes the performance of our admin corps. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232 ^talk 10:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably would be a good idea to be part of this. Please note that this is not the cabal. Besides, There Is No Cabal. Valley2city^‽ 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I've been commenting, and this effort is clearly needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have thoughts. (that may surprise some folks.) Not sure how to express those thoughts, yet. SirFozzie (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Avi (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worth looking at. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like the idea! Netalarmtalk 05:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an admin. Racepacket (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long overdue. Willking1979 (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
œ ^™ 04:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh shiny! Signbook! Must Sign!.... --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dank and Coffee. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diligent work of the administrators is, of course, vital to the prosperity of this project. —Finn Casey 05:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork *^YES! 11:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You all smell bad. Master of Puppets 03:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zoo Pro 08:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm already involved here, might as well put my name here. Gigs (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rogue admins are no joke, just because of what they can do. With power, comes responsibility, "but power tends to corrupt." Lord Acton -- Rico 21:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll join. The issue, as I see it, is of great importance. Jusdafax 18:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per the wisest comments above (while smiling with enjoyment with the most humorous ones, especially the ones implying mockery of self and other appropriate subjects :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A long-needed wikiproject, and for everyone - this cannot just be an admin protection scheme. All kinds of future improvements to Wikipedia could go through or even start in here. Admin are central to more than Wikipedia generally admits to. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus and the mailing list really ruined Wikipedia for me this year. It was the kind of thing I always knew happened, but it was painful to see it exposed nonetheless. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jay Starz It's an honor to be part of this wikiproject! June 8, 2012 (UTC)