Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination)

Thoughts so far
Obviously I can't close this MfD, and there is a still a number of days to go, but it is looking like the timing of this nomination, as opposed to the previous one, is producing a calmer debate, though I suppose we will never know what would have happened to the arbitration case if the second nomination had proceeded (possibly it would have been as calm as this) and ended a similar way. Anyway, the point I wanted to make here was that I can't see any one arguing to keep the page as a whole so far (while several argue to retain the 'requesting access' option in some form). Carl is concerned that the page may be seen as a scapegoat. Possibly a scapegoat is needed sometime, however unfair that may be, and a page doesn't really have feelings that can be hurt, unlike the participants in the arbcom case. Some are concerned about the history of the evidence - this can be addressed by moving the page and its page history to (for example) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (or a better named subpage if that link turns out to break anything - for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence/Page history of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins), and then (where needed) changing the existing incoming links (126 - mostly noticeboard, arbitration or user talk page links) to point to this evidence subpage (which could be blanked with an appropriate notice that it is simply an evidence subpage where the page history has been deposited). All other incoming links (ones that weren't intended to point to the page as part of the arbitration case) would stay and be met with either a redirect to the main WP:IRC page or meta - doesn't matter. Edit warring over which one it should be redirected to would be best avoided, of course (a new discussion may be needed for that - or leave it up to Arbcom). Simply redirecting to WP:IRC would be simpler, but putting the page history squarely in the arbitration case pages would symbolically pass the evidence to the arbitration committee and indicate that the community is (almost literally) washing its hands of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this solution, Carcharoth. I'd also recommend that the page history for the talk page be included, as part of the evidence was that some users were discussing on the talk page while others were not.  Risker (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The talk page would move with it. Note that my proposal is not needed to preserve the page history, as even if redirected, the history will still be accessible. My proposal is more a symbolic gesture of "evidence goes here, redirect goes here, end of matter". Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ArbcomDeletedpage has been used before when an otherwise deleted page is temporarily needed for an ArbComm case. I think that it, or a more precisely worded tag, would be simpler.  That tag was used, for example, in the Allegations of Apartheid case for several pages on allegations of X apartheid that were temporarily needed as evidence.  GRBerry 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing
Technically the time for closing this debate has arrived. Could be tricky. Any ideas on how to achieve a peaceful closure? It should be noted that one person who took part in the debate tried to close it (as 'no consensus') and got reverted. I have a view on what the consensus is, but as I took part in the debate, and hold strong views on this, I obviously shouldn't say any more. The question is whether it is better for a random MfD-closing admin to deal with this, or to find an uninvolved "wise head" to try and come up with a fair and just closing decision (assuming such a thing exists)? Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a tough one to judge, I've just spent some considerable time reading it through - I've come to a conclusion to the consensus based solely on the discussion and have no opinion on the page itself. Would you like me to close it? Or am I too involved given I participated in the IRC case?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm. Well, first, thanks for asking. It's up to you really to judge if you are too involved in IRC matters - I can't judge that any better than you can. My reading, in case it helps, is based on the absence of a certain type of !vote, and the similarity of the existing !votes. But maybe that is saying too much? If you do decide to close it, could you please mention that the discussion bits can and should be continued elsewhere - suggesting where to continue the discussions would be a bonus. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Already writing the closing rationale :-)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And no doubt noting a new !vote that just arrived. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Preparing the RfC
Some existing pages related to IRC on Wikipedia and meta, to help prepare for the RfC:

Wikipedia pages

 * IRC channels
 * Category:User essays on IRC
 * List of administrators/IRC nicknames
 * IRC tutorial
 * Scripts

Meta pages

 * IRC - etc. (please add major pages below)

Basically, there is a lot out there. More than I have listed here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created the RfC already as part of my close - could these links be copied over to the lead?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. People can look for themselves. If you want to add them, please do, but they are a rather incomplete list. I've copyedited the RfC, but that is me done for tonight. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it appropriate to request comments on a Meta page on this wiki? Meta has its own RfC process, and decisions here are hardly binding there. ~Kylu ( u | t )  04:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is mainly for guidance and understanding of the subject - we shouldn't be attempting to change meta-processes.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Post closure commentary
(moved from closed page)


 * User:Ryan Postlethwaite is a chanop at #en-admins. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)