Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

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 WP:SNOW ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

This chatroom has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and this page leads people to mistakenly believe it does. Users are of course free to advertize their private clubhouses on their own personal websites, but Wikipedia is not a free web host. Friday (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of nomination: I fully realize there's no making the channel go away. The choice we have here is whether or not to encourage use of it, here on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of clarification: I realize my original nomination may be a bit incoherent. Here's what's impossible about this page: If this chat room is "part of" Wikipedia, what's it doing being controlled by a single person? It comes right out and says it's a members-only club, rather than simply being open to admins (which would make more sense to me, altho I would still consider that a Bad Idea). If it's not "part of" Wikipedia, what are we doing with a project-space page promoting use of it? Let the owner promote his private club on his own dime, if it's really private. Maybe nobody much has difficulty with this but me, but which is it, Wikipedia or not-Wikipedia? Right now it seems to be trying to be both. Friday (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. If that's too abstract, here's a more practical question: What the fuck are we doing encouraging non-transparent discussion of Wikipedia-related matters? There may occasionally be legit privacy or legal concerns on certain matters, but surely the small group (oversighters, arbcom, I mean you guys) that deals with those issues already have their nonpublic channels. So what is this for exactly? What does this do that isn't already covered elsewhere? The last thing we want is to fragment discussion more. Friday (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The main argument against the channel has been that it is a closed shop and too much of a clique. Deleting the instructions on how people go about joining is hardly going to help. Its usefulness as a resource for co-ordinating legitimate administrator activity and for discussion matters involving confidential info is clear. It has a lot to do with Wikipedia. WjBscribe 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• If this channel has nothing to do with Wikipedia then I take it nothing said in this channel is relevant to Wikipedia, yes? Mackensen (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While Friday's reasons for deletion are completely and utterly specious, this page is an attractive nuisance and interferes with the intended cabalosity of the channel. Deletion is obviously the best possible action. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• The channel was formed by Danny for official Wikipedian purposes and is used by Jimbo and others for those purposes. It also serves as a clubhouse, as Friday picturesquely puts it, for administrators. This is A Good Thing. All administrators should consider using it. The page itself, despite what Kelly may say, doesn't seem to have been the focus of controversy and shows little evidence of controversy of any kind. --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In order to stop IRC from becoming a rouge admin cabal, it is best to get as many admins in as possible. The application section gives the people able to give out access levels a list of who to add. Sean William 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Sidaway. Anyway, deleting this page won't make IRC go away. In fact, it will make it even more cabal-ish, if new admins have a hard time finding out about the IRC channel and joining it. Mangojuice^talk 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if only for the access request list, which it makes sense to have in a central place for multiple people to chase up. —Sean Whitton / 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per [1]. There is a way to change the relationship between Wikipedia and IRC. This ain't it. Thatcher131 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination per [2]. Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Surely we can disagree without it having to be bad faith? This page should go away, hence, the MFD. It's quite simple. Friday (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  We have these things on Wikipedia that we call policies. If you have a policy objection concerning official/unofficial (which is all that you've asserted) then it applies to Wikipedia:IRC channels as a whole. I urge you to withdraw this nomination and nominate the main page. Otherwise, all we're left is "this page should go away." Why? Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that we now close this deletion discussion according to the Snowball clause. --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was hoping for more time in case people came along who don't think I'm crazy, but perhaps it's a moot point. Friday (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• What's the point? The existence and cabalism of the channel has already done its damage (and don't block me for trolling or some nonsense, I'm expressing my opinin, which I wholly and in good faith consider valid). If this page is deleted, what will that accomplish? As it stands, people can learn from it and it is not violating any project-space policies; as the IRC channel stands, with ill-considered blocks being discussed, people being insulted and an elitist "application" system merely to get in, screw it. --Iamunknown 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• If this page goes away, those doing the recruiting for this chat room will have to do it on their own dime. Over time, with luck, it may atrophy and go away. In the meantime, getting rid of on-wiki reference to it is helpful, because we're no longer giving it the illusion of legitimacy. Friday (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely opposed to the existence of the channel; I know the history of the channel and its original intended purpose (high-speed notification of trusted users by Jimbo, Danny or other elites); hopefully the idiocy surrounding the channel will some day atrophy away and die. But at least until then, do delete the page. You've convinced me. --Iamunknown 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Why you felt the need to imply that you'd be blocked is wholly beyond me. As though any sysop who uses IRC is a power-drunk madman. Mackensen (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One says such things when: (1) one interacts with some who use the channel, (2) one sees what has happened, oh, in the past twenty-four hours, and (3) one is merely a registered account. --Iamunknown 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Aside from clarifying the nature of the channel, this page makes it easy for new admins and IRC newbs to gain access, which reduces groupthink and cabalism. That is a good thing. – Steel 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia? How? One 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Sean William put it well. The more people are involved on it, the less chance that stuff goes unnoticed and unreviewed. More people, makes people behave better, not worse. So encouraging it is good. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• zOMG drama! —Миша13 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • AAAAAAAAA to that! One 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep IRC doesn't create stupid decisions...that's like blaming a telephone for a bad decision. I really should have just closed this instead of voting, but passionate opinions have no place in mediation. Anyway, who's to say the whole debacle couldn't have happened on an ANI thread? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:SNOW? ^(H) 23:56, 23 May 2007 (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.