Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator--Docg 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins
It may surprise some that I am nominating this. As a (former) frequent participant of this channel, and a chanop, this page has simply got to go. Firstly, most of the page is long-winded irrelevant fluff. When an admin is invited to the channel, it is their responsibility to behave well. Mostly it's just using common sense. We don't need a long story about how some admins were removed from the channel, and how some were perhaps made unwelcome. We also don't need a long history of its purpose, who owns it etc. All this page has done since its creation has caused a load of lame edit wars, and it really shouldn't have even been made in the first place. The only section worth keeping is the requests for access section, in my opinion. I propose we add that to IRC channels and delete the rest of this page, to stop these lame edit wars and silly drama. Thanks.  Majorly  (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems unnecessary, and also creates tension for new admins entering the channel. As for conduct, I'm pretty sure people can just use common sense. Master of Puppets Care to share?  23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw the nomination - premature. Let the arbitration case (Requests for arbitration/IRC) finish first, and then the community can decide what to do with this page. I've advised the admin who added the MfD notice to revert their addition of the notice, and I suggest Majorly withdraw this nomination. For the record, I'd support deletion at a later date. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I would suggest, that if consensus is in favour of deletion, the actual act of deleting the page is postponed until the closure of the arbitration case surrounding the page. The page, and diffs from it, serve as evidence in the present arbitration case and to make things fair for all non administrators following and participating in the case, the page would be best left undeleted (though perhaps blanked) until such times as the evidence is not required. Basically, Carcharoth edit conflicted me saying the exact same thing. Nick (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Close pending ArbCom decision, per Carcharoth. We're better off discussing this after a decision is made, given that the channel and this page are the subjects of the case. Alternatively, delete, but wait until the end of the case. --Core desat 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until Arbcom decides As there is currently Arbitration in progress where this page was heavily involved, I strongly suggest that any decision regarding this page is delayed until the Arbitration process finishes. Charon X /talk 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Close discussion pending arbCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No no no Unhelpful nomination in midst of current drama. There's no chance of cool discussion here. Uninvolved party should speedy close.--Docg 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider this postponed then. Could an admin remove the notice from the page please? Once the Arbcom decision is made, this can be reopened.  Majorly  (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this needs closed. People will still stumble across it and opine. There's no precedent for "suspending" these things. Close it an relaunch later if you must.--Docg 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only place it is now linked from is the evidence page of the arbcom case. That's cos I added it there to keep track of all these things! I don't feel strongly either way, but it's not really going to make much difference. Maybe let Doc put a note at the top of the page to stop random people restarting discussion, or modify the "closed" notice to make clear it is suspended, not closed. Though Doc has a point that "suspension" doesn't have any precedent. Best to stick to the current system we have of opening and closing. If the notion of suspension of XfDs spread, things could get nasty. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)