User:Mercury~enwiki/Recall

This recall petition has been closed, the result of which is a forwarding to an RFC: User:Mercury/RFC.

Recall

This page is a record of a recall petition, (see Category:Administrators open to recall and the talk, as well as references below) concerning Mercury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Remember that recall is a voluntary process, that it does not have the force of policy, and that this page is in Mercury's user space, to show that Mercury ultimately controls the process. If not satisfactory to the community, the other, more formal recourses offered by dispute resolution are always available.

I have asked (Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) to clerk this petition formally.

Mercury has decided that if there are 6 valid requests to be recalled (using the standard definition given in Category:Administrators open to recall, over 500 mainspace (or at least non userspace) edits and over one month of tenure) that Mercury will honor the petition.

The nature of how the recall will be honored (RfC, re RfA, etc) was not specified. This section will be edited (by Krimpet or Mercury) to clarify these items. Editing of this section by others is subject to reversion as disruptive of this voluntary and informal process.

See also

The following pages are directly of reference:

Relevant as background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Friday/Recall_Petition (format here cribbed from that one)

Discussion

I believe that those who request or support recall have a duty to explain why. Even if the recall attempt does not succeed, the reasoning may serve as useful feedback to correct a tendency to err in judgment in a particular direction. I strongly encourage those who are requesting or supporting recall to explain why, either directly on this page or by link to one or more diffs elsewhere where it has previously been explained. GRBerry 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

I haven't decided whether to request or support recall, so this is more of a number of questions than an explanation of my request or support, really. I hope that's all right.

• A major impetus for this seems to be your controversial close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (7th nom).
  • Could you comment on why you closed it the way that you did?

Normally when I close an AFD, if it is an XFD I'll need to be examining for some length of time I'll place the {{closing}} template. I did. So after doing that, I assigned weight to the arguments. Some arguments got literally the weight of a feather, and some were convincing to me. After I read it twice, I decided there was no consensus to do anything. This defaults a keep. I found the arguments as to her notability very convincing as well. That they were marginal and ambiguous. That is to say, open to multiple interpretations. I have assigned a good deal of weight to the subjects request. This was going to be a controversial action, so I slept on it. I am a subscriber to there is no deadline. I believe I did the right thing.

• • Later comments, such as the request for a WP:TROUT imply that you think you did it wrong; can you specify what you believe you did wrong, and how you would handle a similar case next time?

I should not have split my decision into two separate areas. In the future my deletion notes need to be clear and there will be no sleeping so my closes are not misinterpreted.

• On the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley‎ you wrote "If you suspect admin abuse, I'm open to recall. Request it on my talk page and I'll tell you the requirements." After CharlotteWebb asked to recall you, and I asked for the requirements, as per that statement, you wrote that you would no longer be open to recall, as you believed the people involved in the Deletion review were abusing the process.
  • Would you say that is an accurate summary? (If not, please explain.)

Pretty accurate, except that I eventually accepted recall.

• • If you didn't want the people in the deletion review to ask about recall, why did you suggest it in the deletion review?

I had no idea it would be requested in the middle of the DRV and that involvement with Durova would be cited, along with editors not wanting me on the arbitration committee. I had considered CW's request bad faith.

• • When you signed up for recall, what did you think it would be like?

Very dignified. I had imagined it to be a thoughtful process.

• More general question: WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards says "When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted." Your comments at the deletion review seem to be that you closed the AfD as no consensus, then deleted based on the subject's wishes.
  • Would you say that is an accurate summary? (If not, please explain.)

No, I explained in more detail above. Please let me know if you have any follow up questions.

• • Daniel Brandt is on record as saying that he believes that all articles about living people that the article subject wants deleted should be deleted. Where do you believe the line should be drawn?

When notability is clear, and the consensus is clear.

• • Do you believe that in all no-consensus closes about articles about living people the closing admin gets to decide whether to delete? Would you have supported an alternate closing by an admin who did not delete?

When the requirements of our biography of living persons as far as administrator discretion are met, the closing admin gets the discretion in its current wording. I may not have supported. My nonsupport would have voiced at DRV and that is where it would have stopped. I can be convinced otherwise, at DRV.

• • How do you feel about the contention that makes AfD closing into a race between whether a "delete" admin and a "keep" admin gets to the close first?

I had not considered this. I never felt or observed the contention. It is really a non issue, we have policy on deletions. Basically I could have closed non consensus and another administrator could have come behind me and did the BLP deletion.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Are you saying that you read that policy to say that if a living person article that the subject does not want has had a no consensus close, it can be deleted by any admin at any time? --AnonEMouse

^(squeak) 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. If notability is ambiguous and the subject requests it, in a no consensus close, we can then consider the subjects wish.

Sure. I hope you don't mind if I answer within the comment block, I'll italicize. Regards, Mercury 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've answered some of them. Let me know if you have anymore. Mercury 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just one clarification of your last answer, please. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I hope that helped. Mercury 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to sleep on it. I guess you know how that is. :-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from ^demon

I have been accused before of acting outside policy, or perhaps taking my own interpretations of policy. Oftentimes, I find myself doing what I feel is best for the encyclopedia, not necessarily what policy dictates (I think I've read like half of one policy, ever). Did you feel you were doing a similar thing? Were you prepared for the reaction you knew you'd probably get? Do you still feel strongly that you did the right thing?

I'm not sure if I applied the ignore all rules in this one. I applied the deletion policy, then applied the BLP policy based on the discussion on AFD. If I have misinterpreted the policy(s) please hit me with a trout. That is to say, come to my talk page and break it down) so I'll know better. I was totally unprepared for the reaction. I figured a thoughtful note on WP:AN would have been good to explain my action. I feel like I did the right thing. I mean, when we have notability that is not clear, and a subject requesting deletion, we consider those, I think. We need to take these things slowly, and thoughtfully, these BLP things. Mercury 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's all I needed to hear. A good admin by my standards at least. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate

It is no secret that Durova mentored you in the past and co-nominated you for adminship. Not too long ago you controversially protected a thread discussing her actions over at WP:AN/I, and even more recently you closed an AFD she started and controversially deleted the article she had nominated. Looking back, do you still stand by those actions? Administrators are amongst our most trusted members of the community and are in fact elected (for lack of a better word) by the community. In light of these recent events (including an attempt to have the talk page for administrators open to recall deleted when the possibility of a recall attempt for you was being discussed), do you understand why some are questioning your suitability as an administrator? AniMate 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why some of our editors question my suitability. I have written an Open Letter to the community I thought may explain some things better. I don't owe Durova anything for nominating me for adminship. She knows that, so I don't feel as if I need to give her special consideration. What I did to that thread was outside policy, for what I thought was beneficial. I would have done it for anyone. However, what I did learn from that, that in those situations, there is no stopping those discussion. Even if they are nonproductive. I'll not be doing that again. As far as the AFD, I believe, or believed, what I did was so grounded in policy there be no question. I was wrong. There is question. But we have the DRV process for that. I don't think any perceived relationship should have played. I believe the policy and guidelines that I used in the deletion should be debated. I did not take the recall request as a good faith one, and perceived the log entry as a bad mark. Perhaps it is too soon to discuss this, I'm too close. But I think I'd like to discuss it sometime in the future. I might even want to discuss recall as a system. But there is a time for that. Thank you for your questions. Mercury 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually support the deletion of the article on Angela Beesley, however it showed a real lack of judgment that you out of all the administrators were the one who actually deleted. Questions of meatpuppetry have been raised in regards to your relationship with Durova, and I can't imagine that this would come as a surprise to you. You and Durova have a close wiki-relationship, and that is perfectly acceptable. After the community reaction to you protecting the AN/I thread, one would hope that you had learned that caution should be applied with your use of administrative tools in regards to your mentors on wiki actions. Apparently, you did not. I do not trust your judgment as an administrator and have said as much in the past. While recall in a voluntary category, your attempts to game it on your talk page give me even more doubt to your suitability as an administrator. I'm going to support this recall. AniMate 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you requesting recall? Mercury 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Friday

A few weeks ago, you told Kmweber that you'd block him for disruption if he continued his RFA opposes. I commented on this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber and came right out and asked you guys a couple questions about this situation. I never got an answer. Had you read the RFC? Was there some back-channel communication going on here? (If so, was there a legitimate need for privacy?) Do you still think the threat of a block was appropriate? Friday (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is disruptive, I still do. The community seems to be split on the issue, so I can't block without community support. I requested arbitration. Since the arbitration request was declined, I took that as move along now. And I have.

I don't recall requesting a review or asking folks to comment on that in a particular direction. I may have posted a link the discussion on IRC, but that is what I sometimes do. Just a link, no recommendations. I've done the same think on Wiken-L before. Here recently on the DRV and the BLP talk page to get folks to comment there, so that we can have a clear view of the community. My Open Letter to the Community details my commitment as far as off wiki communications go.

I read the RFC. Part of the reason I'm not participating in the Kmweber dispute is that I think the community has already spoken there. Without community support, and with AC unwilling or unable to arbitrate it, I do not think a block would be appropriate at this time. Mercury 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still very uncomfortable with someone having the block button if they think that stating one's opinion of a candidate at RFA is disruptive. And, I'll admit, I thought your recent MFD nomination smelled pointy, as we discussed. However, I can find no fault in your answer here, and I don't see any kind of pattern of egregiously poor judgement. I urge you to be conservative with blocks, but I see no reason to support the recall request. You appear to be legitimately open to feedback from the community, whether it's positive or negative, and this counts for a lot in my book. Mistakes are allowed; disagreements are allowed. We live and learn. Friday (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I was alarmed when I came across the apparent threat to block Kmweber for being disruptive in RfAs, as that seemed to me to be an attempt to censor a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, and to show pretty poor judgement. For that reason I am adding my name to this request for recall. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take this as a clear request in support of this recall. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Chowbok

I have no questions for Mercury at this time. I think that his actions in the Beesley affair are extremely troubling; this goes beyond a simple poor judgement call. It's indicative of an attitude that Wikipedia mucky-mucks should be given special treatment. It's nearly impossible to imagine that a similar situation with, say, a minor Ford vice-president would have played out the same way. He seems to be gaming the system to achieve a desired outcome. This, combined with his odd flip-flops on the issue of recall and the incident referred to above by AniMate, points a picture of an admin who is dangerously enamored of power. I would strongly advise Mercury to step down voluntarily and concentrate on being an editor for a while.—Chowbok ☠ 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, you are requesting recall? Mercury 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. My apologies for getting ahead of myself on the list below. Wasn't sure of the etiquette/procedure.—Chowbok ☠ 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Same with me. AniMate 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from CygnetSaIad

A dignified, thoughtful process.

On the process in general, now that this recall is happening it appears to match the above description. The times that recall has been initiated (as noted on the now-not-to-be deleted subpage) look to have had that in common: The dust-up is always on if it's happening, not when it happens.

Beyond that, being recalled should be as much !bigdeal as being an administrator should be. It's not a badge of a gold star, it's simply a set of tools that require a certain set of skills to apply correctly. And, just as we do not expect everyone to have the skills to churn out feature articles, we should not expect everyone to be a "good admin." Having had a go at it and then letting go should have no sting.

I'd like for Mercury to give up the bit for now, but I won't be adding my name to the list below, as this account fails to be an editor in good standing. (I choose not to associate my "real" self with this type of meta-discussion. I am probably immune to check-user, but if a CU uses my email I'll be happy to discuss it.) This is not due only to the most recent AfD, but that was a componant. If Mercury would like to enquire further as to my reasons, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

CygnetSaIad (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may be so bold...

... I see nothing wrong with Mercury's actions. He acted on an AfD in a proper way, determining that there was in fact, no consensus to delete, but understood that Angela Beesley requested that it be deleted in the AfD. The DRV also shows slight consensus leaning towards the endorsement of deletion. I am creating a section against recall, and hope that you will understand that recall makes no sense. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Ral315

I was asked to explain my opinion, and I'll do so here. I believe that Mercury made a fundamental mistake in his handling of the AFD of Angela Beesley; as I explained on the DRV, while I agree that Angela Beesley might be worth deleting in theory, I don't believe he used policy to do so. He called it "no consensus", then deleted it, citing BLP. If BLP was the issue, it should have been stated as such from the beginning; Mercury instead cited the BLP deletion as a separate decision. That's even worse, personally, because that implies that Mercury willingly disregarded the "no consensus" close that he saw to enforce his reading of policy (which clearly hadn't been a majority opinion at AFD). A "no consensus" close does NOT give admins carte blanche to delete the article on the basis of what they view as BLP issues -- if there's a serious BLP issue, then that's one thing. If it's just a possible lack of notability/subject doesn't want the article, then the subject's opinion can be taken into account, but should not be the deciding factor in a "no consensus" close.

"Sleeping on" a decision is something that's inexcusable -- if you've got that much doubt in your mind, don't close it, or at the very least, don't close it until the next morning. Wikipedia won't collapse if an AFD isn't closed for another 12 hours, or if it's closed by another administrator. Honestly, in a lot of ways, it could look as if Mercury was persuaded to change his reasoning by other administrators -- I'm not suggesting that happened, but the potential appearance of such should be a serious consideration.

The notability of Angela, meanwhile, may have been debatable, but that's a debate that means there's a serious question there, that shouldn't be dismissed by the closing admin (as it seems to have been). Mercury's closure seems to have been his opinion of what policy should be, not what policy was, or what the majority of commenters had interpreted policy to be in the week prior.

I'm not looking for blood here. And honestly, I'm not sure of the merits of recall in general. But Mercury signed up for recall, and so I think it's fair to ask him to stand for recall if his adminship may come into question. At this point, I'm not sure whether I trust Mercury to close another close AFD; his insistence that he made the right decision, to delete a page with no consensus to do so (as he had ruled just 10 hours prior), is appalling (and please, note that had I seen the AFD, I would have probably commented in favor of deleting the article). But the way that Mercury went about the process is unforgivable in my mind, and thus I think having a recall against Mercury would be prudent. Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Users Against Recall

• J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs
• Mr.Z-man 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Looks unnecessary to me at this point. Acted in good faith, people can disagree about that without any assumption of ill faith or abuse. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Certainly acted in good faith, and hasn't done anything else that could be considered seriously bad for the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Has Mercury made some colossal fuckups recently by reasonable standards? Sure. Has he learned lessons and become a better admin because of it? I think so. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not exactly the wording I would have chosen :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this section necessary? From what I'm seeing, this section only creates more drama and gives us the idea that there are two warring cabals.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I felt it was necessary because there wasn't one. It seemed as though if we had just made our opinions known through comments, the process would have continued as normal. Now that there is a section in similar format to the pro-recall section, there is more of a visual representation that there is no consensus to desysop Mercury. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you re-think. Not suggesting that only "opposers" should get a word in here, but note how quickly the level of discourse has run downhill now that we're voting on it. The comments and questions above are considered, respectful, and regardless of the outcome will almost certainly have a positive effect. Mercury will have things to think about, those who contributed above will have been given a venue to express themselve, everyone benefits. Down in the section we've got "colossal fuckups" and "Preposterous." Is that the level of input we'd have accepted from those asking for recall? Certainly not. If the section under my account cosisted only of the word "retire" the excoriation would be ceaseless. If you don't have the time or inclination to actually add anything to the discussion, a bullet-point vote isn't acceptable.
    CygnetSaIad (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I totally agree. I, too, would have worded some of these comments a bit differently. If I may point out, there are two users pro-recall who really haven't contributed anything to the discussion here. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• The level of drama here actually seems unusually subdued to me. Whatever else this may be, I am certain it is a quite unpleasant experience for Mercury. Therefore, I don't think some show of support along with the calls for recall is out of line. If actual warring and drama break out, then some clarification of the format may become necessary, but not yet.--Kubigula (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Preposterous.--MONGO (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• If this creates a precedent, we will soon be left without any admins who are willing to make potentially controversial decisions. Just slap him once if you feel you have to, then get back to work. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:06, December 12, 2007
• Whatever my personal opinions of this user—other than deleting Angela Beesley, which was a very difficult AFD close and I can hardly blame him even if I do think it was perhaps the wrong call; I can't offhand think of anything this user has actually done "wrong" that has involved the administrative tools.—Random832 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Too early, and no lasting damage or harassment to any one user in this case. People get heated, and the past couple of weeks have been stupid. Lawrence Cohen 19:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• We don't need to gather kindling at this time. Horologium (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Certainly this was good-faith. Nihiltres^{t.l} 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• There are administrators who need desysopping, but you're not one of them. Acalamari 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• The only potential here is for an unneeded drama-fest. Disagreeing with a user's close of an AfD is not grounds for desysopping, and pending the outcome of the DRV, Mercury will either be justified or overturned. Nothing more needs to come from this. - auburnpilot talk 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Good Grief! as if there isn't enough wikidrama already, whether you think the deletion was warranted or not, it doesn't merit a recall. RMHED (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Please do not equate recall with desysopping. Recall is a voluntary process in which embattled admins seek a bigger forum to "reconfirm" the community's trust in them. The very community that gave them the mop. From what I'm seeing on this section, even if Mercury does need to stand for reconfirmation, there is substantial support for him. The possibility of losing his tool is quite slim.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Hopefully the possibility of him losing his tool is very slim indeed, but this may be another example of England and America being separated by a common language. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong Malleus. I support the recall motion. Except that the clerk hasn't added my name.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was just making a little joke about the word "tool". Here in Ye Olde England we sometimes use that word for, well how shall I say it, the male member. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at humor, but this entire petition is serious to me. Regards, Mercury 02:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hahaha! Well, we're talking about someone on the internet. You can never be sure of their gender. Even though the possibility of losing that particular tool you're talking about is indeed slim, we can never be sure if he has a "tool" to begin with.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tally

Certified recall requests

Please do not edit this section directly - instead, place your request in the section below. Once vetted, you will be added to this section.

4 users in good standing per definition - over 500 mainspace edits prior to 2007-12-01, clean block log since 2006-12-01

1. CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
2. Ral315 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
3. AniMate (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
4. Chowbok (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
5. Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Uncertified requests

Please add your name to this section if you wish to support this recall - a clerk will verify your request and add it to the above section.

1. Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log): I don't have a clean block log. Please leave my name in the uncertified requests section. Thanks

---

End time

The end date/time of this recall petition will be 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC), 5 days from the request for recall on 09:17, 10 December 2007. Mercury 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Final result

I am going to go ahead and accept this as a certified recall request. I don't see much difference in five or six people. I choose to do this as an RFC. Which is located at User:Mercury/RFC. Thank you all for participating. I have taken a lot from the comments here. Mercury 04:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

A point of information: Some other petitions I've clerked or seen clerked by others (and yaay, someone else is clerking this one) have had "Users Against Recall" sections or similar, and some don't. These sections typically have not been taken into account in determining certification. That's not to say that doing so is "bad"... it's just not part of the typically defined process. I'm sure Mercury is gratified to see the comments though. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But it seems to have been made clear that there are more users against recall than required for recall. Surely these comments should be made clear, and taken into equal consideration (using the clerk's discretion, as with any task involving determining consensus) as the recall votes. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall (as commonly executed in the past) is not a vote, and it's not a consensus determining exercise. What matters (as recall is commonly executed) is how many editors/admins/whatever in good standing (under the recallee's criteria, which may vary) certify that they are requesting a recall. The number of editors that think the recallee should not be recalled is not relevant and the properly executed clerk function is completely without any judging of consensus. Rather, it is a purely mechanical evaluation of whether the necessary number of requesters (petitioners) meet the criteria and the requests (petition signatures) were made within the time period specified. Remember, the full name is "recall petition", it carries the petition process connotation, although the request is to the recallee themselves, not to an authority. It may be instructive to review User:Friday/Recall_Petition, User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive Recall Petition and User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_19#Recall_.28see_also_.5B1.5D.29. All three of these were executed purely mechanically. Presumably that's what Mercury wants as well. The supports are nice, but not relevant unless there is a deviation in process. Which is not a matter for clerk discretion, it's a matter for Mercury discretion. And changing the process after it starts may not be regarded at all favorably and I am making no suggestion whatever that Mercury would do that. Hope that helps clarify things. All that said, I think it's nifty how many people chose to put their name in the section nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I want to thank Krimpet for clerking this. Good job. Mercury 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)