The result of the discussion was Delete - with no prejudice against recreation in different form.
To preface this close: This close is only about this specific page. It has no effect whatsoever on the question of administrators' accountability and how it should or should not happen.
Judging solely by numbers, this MFD has a 38-19 majority in favor of deleting this page. Consensus on Wikipedia, however, does not rely on numbers but on policy- and guideline-based arguments. As such, a number of !votes have to be discounted because they fail to provide any clear reasoning (or any reasoning at all). Also, there has been a major change to the page during this MFD ([1]) which removed the usernames of the admins in question and changed the scope of the page drastically, rendering most !votes before this change less convincing, if not moot.
While Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability does address the content of the page, the purpose of the policy is to state that administrators are accountable for their actions, not how such accountability should work. In fact, the only part of the policy that addresses this (Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse")) does not mention lists in user pages as a way to handle such disputes. As such, as a number of people have pointed out correctly, the relevant guideline for handling this page is WP:UP#POLEMIC.
While any guideline, unlike what some !voters seem to believe, does allow for exceptions, they are the accepted standard for such cases. Hence the circumstances why an exception should be made have to be demonstrated and those in favor of making an exception need to explain why the guideline should not apply in the specific case. The guideline forbids collections of diffs and evidence on specific actions without a good cause to do so; most !voters on both side of the discussion agree that this page is such a list but disagree whether the guideline should be applied to it. There is also a agreement though that the problem with the page is mainly the record of specific administrative actions to be listed there indefinitely and not the idea of keeping a watch on problematic behavior by administrators. UP#POLEMIC after all allows such diffs to be compiled if dispute resolution is planned. While a number of people admitted that the page's creator was not given the chance to make a case for this, he did in fact claim that he did want to keep the list indefinitely, i.e. in a way not covered by UP#POLEMIC's exception.
While the arguments that admins should not mind such pages being created and that deleting such pages carries the risk of a chilling effect are both valid, they are also meta-arguments that apply to pages holding admins accountable in general, not only this specific page. What swayed the decision to deletion in this specific case was not that such pages should not exist in general. Rather it was the strong consensus that this specific page fails to serve this goal in its current form, i.e. by keeping a list of specific actions forever without any inclination to resolve those perceived problems. That said, I think consensus is not against recreating the page in a way that seeks to collect such diffs and examples in order to hold an admin actually accountable in a timely manner using the established processes for this or even a newly created process. Such a page would be allowed by WP:UP#POLEMIC as well. As such, if Surturz expresses the wish to rework the page to collect examples for future, timely dispute resolutions, I am willing to restore the page to allow them to do so. Regards SoWhy 11:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)