User:Mercury~enwiki/RFC

This RFC is for me to determine whether or not I currently have the trust of the community per my committment to recall located here  If after this discussion I no longer feel I have the trust of the community per my commitment I will request a steward remove the tools. If I feel I still have the trust, I will close this discussion. This discussion will conclude in five days time. This is how my recall works. Users should feel free to complete the sections as need be. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC). '''This recall started at 04:01, 13 December 2007.

Recall concluded early. See the bottom. M ercury  22:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)



Direct Petition Discussion with Mercury's Responses copied from the Petition
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

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 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 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 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 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) (squeak) 17:28, 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
 * 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, M ercury  17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've answered some of them. Let me know if you have anymore. M ercury  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. M ercury  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. M ercury  22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all I needed to hear. A good admin by my standards at least. ^demon<sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">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. <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 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? <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 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 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. <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 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)

I was sadly quite mistaken in my belief that you're legitimately open to feedback from the community. You've lent unfortunate credence to the critics of recall who assert that it's merely an empty gesture. In this case, it clearly was. This is very unfortunate. Friday (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was sadly mistaken in my sad mistake. Mercury, thanks for honoring your commitment.  This makes you look better, and it makes the idea of recall look better.  Friday (talk) 00:41, 15 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.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For clarification, you are requesting recall? <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 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.&mdash; 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 TalkContribs 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)

Comment from Neil
It was a very poor decision, as evinced by the deletion review, but everybody makes poor decisions. The fact Mercury does not understand why it was a poor decision made in a very strange manner, and has refused to accept any fault, is the concern. This is not the first lapse of judgement. As Mercury signed up to recall, I would hope he would keep his word. To save being asked to clarify, yes, I am requesting recall. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  10:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank for for the comments. It needs no clarification, this is the actual recall.  Regards, <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 10:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment/Question from Spartaz
I have been concerned more then once about admin actions you have taken and in most cases I felt that you had closed off your mind in favour of a particular course of action or had determined that you would only take advice or respond to editors whose opinions your felt were relevant. I do not believe that you are sufficiently open to the concerns of other editors and that you are unwilling to accede to other points of view. You seem unwilling to seek a consensus before taking contentious decisions. The deletion of Angela's article was a classic case in point. I don't feel that you took the possibility that you had a potential conflict of interest at all seriously and you failed to even address the point for most of the earlier debate despite specific issues about this being raised. You then tended to point objectors to an essay you have in your user space rather than actually addressing individual concerns. I understand that you do not see any conflict of interest yourself but the perception is just as important as the reality. Your behaviour exhibits two very serious concerns for me: firstly that you are careless of the perceptions that other people may have for your actions and, secondly, that you are disdainful of outside concerns if you do not agree with them and therefore unwilling to spend your time addressing them or explaining yourself more fully. This would be a serious flaw in an admin whose judgement was generally good but becomes unacceptable in the case of an admin whose judgement is suspect, as it precludes their correcting the mistake at an early juncture and leads to regular drama and disruption to the project. I actually see very little evidence that you really accept that you might have made mistakes this attitude suggests that you will learn little from this RFC. When several editors initially tried to invoke the recall you dismissed their concerns and charactarised more than one good faith and committed editor as effectively being a lynch mob It was your right to promptly withdrew yourself from the category in an extremely graceless way. I understand that you must have been under a lot of pressure and would have been exceedingly stressed but the way you reacted did you no favours at all and now, only a few days later, here we are... I'm confused didn't you recently say you wouldn't do this??? You are showing your decision making to be erratic and appear to have a propensity to reverse yourself on important decisions. I really have to say that I don't think you can continue to go on like this and remain an admin unless your approach significantly changes. So, finally, my question is, what are you going to do differently after this RFC and what have you learned from the (often brutal) feedback that you have received from other editors? Spartaz Humbug! 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I act boldly, then I had better be prepared to explain at length my actions. Not just assume people get me.  I've never been much of a wordsmith, but some article writing will help me there.  In the future, I'll need to address editors concerns one per one, instead of redirecting the masses.  I've put some other points on the page here, if that helps.  But this entire RFC has thus far sharpened my thinking.  Let me know if there is anything specific you want to know about.  I desire to answer.  (I may append this later) Regards, <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I have apologized to my former mentor, Durova. And I apologize to the community for all of this.  The COI angle I did not see coming and I should have known better.  Mistakes won't repeat themselves. <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm not seeing much commitment in your answer to seeking guidance and consensus from the community before taking controversial actions nor any comments about your judgement and these are probably the most important points for me. Any chance you can expand your thinking on these areas? Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me to seek consensus on biography's of living people? I will do so as much as possible.  If I could, yes, absolutely I'll seek consensus.  One caveat...  There are somethings consensus can't touch.  Some BLP items come to mind.  Regards, <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 12:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Close of Your Own Recall RfC
Do you feel that you can ever regain the trust of the community after closing your own Recall when the votes to recall started piling up? Mr Which ??? 23:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The recall is over, and highly doubt Mercury is going to continue answering questions here. I'd recommend either moving it to the talk page, or simply moving on. - auburn pilot   talk  23:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Mercury should retain the toolbox

 * 1) Whether Deletion review/Angela Beesley ultimately decides Mercury's close of Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (7th nom) was appropriate or inappropriate, one questionable AfD closure is not grounds for removal of adminship. Mercury was clearly acting in good faith, and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. Without any evidence of a pattern of abuse, I believe Mercury should retain his adminship as a trusted member of the community. - auburn pilot   talk  04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I absolutely trust Mercury's judgment and have yet to see any evidence of any history of abuse that would warrant removal of admin tools. You can't please everyone all the time. Mr.  Z- man  04:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) He made a difficult decision. Someone eventually had to do it. We need to assume good faith with Mercury. I still trust Mercury with the tools. J- ſtan TalkContribs 04:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Seriously... if this really is just about a controversial close of an AfD then there is no reason for this. DRV exists for a reason and part of that reason is to assume good faith. Mistakes happen and we have a good system to deal with those mistakes. Having reviewed this I see absolutely no proof of Mercury having acted in bad faith and ultimately no harm was done. It's not like we have an abundance of admins willing to close AfDs and especially not with a detailed summary of their rationale. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard that it's more than that, but the AfD is the BLP-conflicting-camel with no apparent consensus that broke the straw's back (not a typo, it really is no big deal. plus, this way, we avoid cruelty to camels). J- ſtan TalkContribs 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yet to see anything that warrants any serious concern. Bstone (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think that the removal of the admin tools over a single mistake is a decleration that admins are required to be perfect - which they are not. Od Mishehu 07:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) This is another Wikipedia kangaroo court, albeit one that Mercury has volunteered to be judged by. Feeding the awkward squad their daily dose of drama keeps them (un)happy, but shouldn't rob us of a good administrator. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Everyone makes mistakes. No need to crucify Mercury over ONE (Maybe 2, but, not 1...) SQL <sup style="color:#999">Query me!  12:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) We need people willing to make difficult decisions, and willing to learn from making them. Although I think perhaps Mercury made too many difficult decisions too soon and didn't necessarily get them all right, I think Mercury should retain the tools, because I believe he's learning from his experience, and I don't think any permanent harm was done. I would advise him to shy away from things likely to be controversial, at least for a while, and build up his experience and the confidence others have in him, but not to avoid them forever. For the record, the recall itself goes into the column "recalls that prove that the recall process works" regardless of the outcome of this RfC. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Closing the AfD, and then sleeping on it was a mistake, it would have been better to sleep on it first, and then close. However, I don't see that one should give up the admin bit because they made a mistake. If it becomes clear that there is no longer community support for his position as an administrator, he should resign the position. I trust Mercury to assess the need to resign or not to resign the mob. I for one am not asking for it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Mercury has done nothing to warrant losing his adminship. He was purposeful and deliberate in his decisions. He stands by what he did with some agreement that the mechanics should have been better. Some decisions are difficult but I am thankful he is willing to make them. I ask that there be no recall of Mercury. -JodyBtalk 12:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I agree wholly with the statements from AuburnPilot, EconomicsGuy, and Redvers. There appears to be more driving this whole process than the stated issue.  Horologium  (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) My view of this admin can be summed up by a message I left on their talkpage recently; I do not agree with much of his interpretation of policy, interaction with certain groups of editors, or indeed the way he conducts himself. However, I am satisfied that Mercury acts only in the best interests of Wikipedia (according to his viewpoint) and that the situations commented upon are mistakes and/or bad judgement calls. If there is serious or consistent abuse of the tools then that should be a matter to be referred to a Steward - this isn't, so Mercury should keep the mop and be allowed to learn to use it better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) I don't particularly like Mercury's attitudes on a number of things. But this is entirely uncalled for. If he steps down as a result of this recall attempt, I will immediately nominate him for another RFA. Actually, that might not be what's best for him anyway. Still think this is ridiculous to do over one AFD close. —Random832 14:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Admins sometimes have to grasp the nettle and make tough decisions. They should largely be allowed to do that, subject to review. But the review should not be a witch-hunt, nor appear to be. Although self-initiated, this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 14:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) This is ridiculous. Mercury read the AFD, he closed it to the best of his understanding, and that closure was challenged at Deletion Review.  This scenario happens literally every day, and we don't desysop people for a bad decision in closing an AFD (assuming that it's a bad decision, which it might not be).  It's shameful that the Daniel Brandt fiasco cost us one admin.  Let's not have the Angela Beesley fiasco cost us another admin. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) A bad decision on an AfD is not a reason for desysopping. While the background to the case may look vaguely suspicious, we should assume good faith. This recall is not needed at this time. WaltonOne 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Looking over that AFD, it sure seems to me that there was no consensus among the community discussion. (Add to that the fact that it was the 7th time it had been up for review sure implies that as well). As I see it, Mercury saw no consensus, so closed it based on his judgement. DRV and other things followed leading to its deletion, specifically the request by the subject for it to be deleted. That much probably should have been enough under BLP to have killed the article before ever reaching AfD, but it happened. However, I don't see this as abuse of the tools or misconduct on the part of Mercury. Oppose recall. Arakunem Talk 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) As I said before, there are administrators who need desysopping, but you're not one of them. Acalamari 17:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Mercury made a mistake, although it wasn't a big one. I can't see that it justifies recall. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) We're all human. Mindraker (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) You've got to be kidding, right? He followed process "at first", and then later made another call via another process. He didn't "abuse" anything. He followed two separate processes, and now there's a DRV in which the community will interpret whether the "call" should be endorsed, overturned, or something else. That's how it's supposed to work. But please pardon me if I find this to be ridiculous (not this process, but rather this calling of this process). - jc37 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) This was a tough call AfD, not everyone will be happy. There is no abuse here. Excuse me when I say I find this desysop effort amazing. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Tough AfDs require boldness. Sometimes bold people get it wrong.  We review those at DRVs, not in recall petitions.  I've lost a lot of respect I once had for Ral during this process.  (struck--no need to make this more personal than it needs to be--CB) Chick Bowen 02:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) I think you handled several things poorly. However, we are none of us perfect, and I am impressed with the way you have handled yourself after having accepted the recall process.  Looks like this will be a growth experience, and you have my support.-- Kubigula (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) I agree with everything already stated above by and .  Cirt (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 23) Keep the bit. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) You can't always get what you want.--MONGO (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury should resign/request removal of the toolbox

 * I'm going to put myself here for now, because I don't trust your judgment right now. That's not to say that I don't think you'd be a quite capable administrator, as you have been.  However, I believe that whether or not you believe the end result was correct, the way that the deletion was brought about was not ideal, and in my opinion was absolutely incorrect.  The only reason I think you should resign as an administrator is that you don't see why closing an AFD as "no consensus", then making a judgment call 10 hours later, should never be the way to handle things, and you continue to maintain that, "I believe I did the right thing".  As such, at this point, I cannot trust you to close another close AFD like this one in the future.  AniMate's comments below are also worth noting.  Ral315 (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've talked with Mercury, and all I can say is that I deeply regret that he's chosen to resign his rights. I apologize deeply for my comments above, and hope that Mercury will stand at RFA soon.  Ral315 (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) In September 2007, Mercury became an administrator. Since then, he has retired from the project. Twice. The first time was after the very ill advised block of orangemarlin, and the second retirement had to do with a run for arbcom that wasn't going well. He has protected a page on the incidents noticeboard that dealt directly with his mentor Durova. Admins shouldn't be protecting pages they are involved in editing, and considering all the cries about cabals, they probably shouldn't do so when it could be perceived that they are protecting their friends. Then after Durova (again), nominated a controversial article for deletion, Mercury stepped in and closed it as no consensus. An uncontroversial decision, one I personally do not agree with (i think deletion is fine), but one showing sound judgment in a complicated situation from a new admin who has made some very public mistakes. Ten hours after closing the AFD, he changed his mind and decided to delete. More drama. His attempts to have the talk page for the admins open to recall deleted was sloppy at best and gaming the system at worst.I don't think Mercury is a bad guy. However, I do think his judgment is poor and that coupled with a strong tendency towards drama do not a good admin make. And, in my opinion, the open letter you keep pointing to is another obvious dramatic ploy. I think the sign of a quality administrator is one who takes time to thoughtfully consider what the best course of action is that would benefit the encyclopedia. Not acting rashly then reconsidering, but thinking before you act. You have shown yourself prone to bad decisions, and you should give up the mop until you are able to make good ones. During the Durova affair, you kept telling people they had to assume good faith. Well I hope you understand that what I am writing here is meant in good faith.  AniMate  06:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my objections: I do not think Mercury is abusive nor do I think this is an emergency situation that requires his immediate desysoping. He isn't a bad admin, just not particularly competent. That sounds bad, but it can be fixed. Sometimes admins have to make tough calls. The ability to navigate those tough decisions well comes with experience and level headed thinking. Mercury, unfortunately, is inexperienced and gravitates towards drama. Why not give up the bit for a couple of months, get back to editing, and maybe undergo some admin coaching? We need sound administrators to keep Wikipedia thriving. I think after three months it's obvious, IMO, that you're just not there yet. AniMate  01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per my comment above. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  10:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I no longer feel Mercury has good judgement. Nothing personal, by the way--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Mercury's behavior first came to my attention during the Durova fiasco. Highly unimpressed with his judgement in that case in several instances (trying to get Giano Arbcom-ed in his mentor's Arbcom was only one of the issues), and as more has come to light regarding his admin actions, I become even less impressed. As such, I support this recall. Mr Which??? 00:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) People who close highly controversial discussions need to do so in a thoughtful manner (otherwise a great deal of community effort is wasted). I don't believe this closure was made in a thoughtful manner. Together with some other errors of judgment I think it's best for Mercury to fulfill the spirit of his commitment to seek reconfirmation in the event of a recall (I don't believe this really qualifies). Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Reading this, I see very legitimate concerns. This should not be about a single AFD - it doesn't take much looking to find other reasons for concern.  There's more history of poor judgement than I was previously aware of.  I think it's clear that Mercury just wasn't ready to be an admin yet.  Maybe in a few years.  I must also point out that the convoluted nature of this recall process looks a bit gamey to me- is the plan to just create additional pages when the recall gets close to succeeding, until people get bored?  The tendency to say he's retiring looks to me like a sign of immaturity.  Thus, I'm not comfortable with him wielding the admin tools at this time.  Friday (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Any admin who does not respect community process and deletes an article unilaterally should not be an admin. Everyking (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Per AniMate and my comments above. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I Have thought long and hard about this because Mercury is clearly a committed good faith admin who is hard working and willing to take on difficult tasks cheefully. My problem remains the high ratio of questionable decisions and the constant drama that subbsequently ensues. I had hoped that the answers to my question would have shown some evidence that Mercury has began to understand the reasons why their decisions create so much controversary and some indicators of how they will avoid them but its simply not there. I'm afraid that I'm only seeing further trouble in the future and I must regretfully ask Mercury to surrender their bit. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Mercury doesnt get it. He continues to not get it. He even makes off wiki personal attacks on people who question his work. I myself was subject to being called a "jackass" for commenting on him quitting and asking for his flag removed when he left in a huff because of his poor placement during the arb elections. That right there shows he does not have the temperament to be an admin (something he accused me of as well, just to put that out there). This is not meant as a reprisal for his attacks/comments towards me, but if my behaviour was deemed uncivil (and i'm sad to say it was occaisionally) his behaviour is as well.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) For a series of bad judgments, well beyond "everyone makes a mistake" country. Closing this early makes his offer a joke...in any case there's lot's of evidence on this page that he lacks the judgment for the job. I think the best thing for him to do is to step down at this point. RxS (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral or Other Commentary

 * Aaargh I do not believe that Mercury is intentionally abusing his tools.  I do think that Mercury has been demonstrating some poor judgment in using his tools.  For very good reasons, we don't have a Assume good judgment policy.  Fortunately, the poor judgments that I'm aware of are not use of the blocking tool, which in my mind is the worst place to apply poor judgment due to the irreversible impact upon real people.  To the extent there is a pattern, it constitutes poor decisions that create drama and generally look to be favoring those who would be in the cabal if there is one.  I'm also concerned about the emotional stability of someone who has retired twice and resigned adminship only to ask for the tools back in less than a week.  What I'd like to see happen is more use of judgment prior to action, more restraint when perceived as involved, and generally less drama.  Whether loss of the tools, temporarily or permanently, is the best path to achieving this is not clear to me at this time.  To be specific, I think poor judgment was exhibited in the protection related to Durova, the AFD close, nominating the log of recall actions for deletion while someone was attempting to recall him.  I don't know enough about the block of orangemarlin to have an opinion on it. GRBerry 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I could, I have addressed instability in my open letter. I wrote that letter in an attempt to assuage concerns related to cabal, and leaving/coming back.  I laid down some very real commitments in the letter directly related to instability and unpredictability.  The use of tools in discussions such as Durova's ANI subpage I have made a commitment in my response to AniMate's question.  For clarification, the first time I requested removal of the bit at Meta on 11 NOV it was clear that I would be returning from leave, and that leave was canceled  I prefer that when I am on extended break, the account not have permissions.  this one is for personal reasons unrelated to the project.  I prefer to keep those private.  I had prefered not to explain it at all.  The very most recent leaving, where I deleted my userspace was the one true leaving.  I was upset, as imagine anyone would be.  I'm only human.  I have written about my commitment on leaving the project here.  I do commit to give more thinking and absolutly more explanation regarding my actions to preclude confusion.  Please if there are more questions, let me know.  <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope Mercury would be less hostile towards disagreement in the future. However, I do not believe this is such a big issue as to warrant recall.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. In retrospect, this was not the proper time to MFD this page, and perhaps my concerns could have been addressed on the talk page.  I do want to address them, but at another time.  Maybe after I can get Amygdalohippocampectomy up to a good article.  I apologize for that MFD. <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 02:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Mercury ever really understood the point of a recall. He reluctantly accepted the request after being called to task and has badmouthed the voluntary process the whole time. His statement of early closure appears to be a self-serving and dismissive response to a stressfull situation. I don't think throwing out platitudes like "community trust" or "here to write an encyclopedia" does anything to address concerns over personal responsibility. Mercury was open enough to ask individual users whether he had their trust and I watched this RFC with great interest as it appeared to be a productive forum for suggesting improvement. He doesn't appear to see it that way any more and that's sad. I don't know whether this demonstrates an inability to use the buttons judiciously, but it sure as hell doesn't do much to suggest a stable temperament or a commitment to stand by one's word. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) I take that back in view of his resignation of administrative privileges. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Outcome
I see a good deal of comments. All of them are taken to heart. It appears this RFC is relating less to my use of tools and more to other things. So, I do feel the community trusts me as a whole, but I have serious doubt to the efficacy of this process. In that serious doubt...


 * I am here to write an encyclopedia.
 * I am in this catagory on a volunteer basis.
 * I remove myself from tha catagory and end thi recall early.
 * I will continue to do what is in accordance with policy and guidelines.
 * I understand my deletion was overturned, and that I was wrong.
 * Anyone not happy with this is encouraged to persue dispute resolution including arbitration.
 * This concludes the recall. <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is crap. You say you're open to recall, and when the support recall votes start piling up, and you start facing hard questions, you shut it down? What kind of process is that? You're further demonstrating your propensity for drama, and your utter misunderstanding of what constitutes the "trust" of the community. You should immediately re-open this recall process, if you want it to have any validity at all. Mr Which ??? 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The common recall threshold is 5 users. There are 10 users.  Therefore, the ethical thing to do would be to stand for recall.  Since Mercury doesn't want to step down, he/she should consider resigning as administrator with me starting a new RFA.  In that nomination, I will highlight the plus and minuses of his/her actions, including some things that I found while searching the past.  The fact that I am nominating means that I found sufficient positives for an RFA.  Shutting a recall down because they don't like 10 opposes seems to be breaking one's promise. Miesbu (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I take the following quote to mean that Mercury doesn't give a damn that he gave his word that he would be an admin open to recall, "I remove myself from tha[t] catagory[sic] and end thi[s] recall early." I consider this bad-faith, and yet another example of why this user is unfit to wield the tools. Mr Which ??? 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that an RFC should remain open as long as people are still commenting, no? RxS (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Mercury opened it in his own userspace, instead of through normal channels? I think it's because it increases the drama, while still giving him complete control of the process. The question is, will he admit that the community doesn't, in fact, "trust" him anymore, and that the least he should do is stand for RfA again, as per the category he promised to be in, when he accepted adminship? Mr Which ??? 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * wow! I really thought I was beyond being surprised, but this is by far the single most disingenuous, self-serving, malodorous perversion of process imaginable. OTOH, I've never before laughed in sheer outrage, so thank you for the novel experience. sNkrSnee |  ¿qué?  00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "perversion of process"? - This whole thing is voluntary. As he said, you are welcome to pursue official forms of dispute resolution. Mr.  Z- man  00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I sign a contract, that's voluntary. If I weasel out of it, that's perverse. Where's the disconnect? sNkrSnee |  ¿qué?  00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, everyone, I understand that Mercury's timing could not have been worse, but let's be civil, please. I agree it still should be open, and I see that many others do too. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to attack Mercury. J- ſtan TalkContribs 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody who didn’t realize from the start that Mercury has no intention of honoring the category he signed up for is obviously brain-dead. That’s why I didn’t even bother to participate in this farce. At first, he tried to shut down the recall and then nominate the category talkpage for deletion. After 5 people certified the request, it is expected that Mercury would stand for a reconfirmation RfA. Instead he opened an informal RfC on this own subpage, which is clearly redundant given that all of the concerns are already raised in the recall subpage. If this ain’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.


 * There's no call for such harshness. We can discuss (and, yes, even criticize) without calling anyone brain-dead.  Friday (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Extremely bad form, Mercury. My lack of confidence in you has grown exponentially, and I repeat what Durova said on your talk page. Honor your commitments. AniMate 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize if this offends anyone. But then again, my point is that it is clear from the start that Mercury was prepare to use any means possible to avoid standing for reconfirmation despite pleging to do so when he signed up for the recall category.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (2 edit conflicts) Nobody's being uncivil here, J-stan. In fact, if my memory is correct, it was you who turned this recall into a concerted pro-Mercury rally. Also, I realize many potential voters who support Mercury's recall are not aware of this subpage while his supporters quickly gathered. All of these are strong suspicions of --WP:CANVASS. I wasn't sure how I was going to vote if Mercury stand for reconfirmation. But now that Mercury continue to show a lack of respect to the community, it is obvious that the community no longer is confident in his capability.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's over. -- Kendrick7talk 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Mercury did that before then changed his mind. Nevertheless, it is still a pity to see it goes down like this. I was hoping Mercury would stand for reconfirmation instead of just resigning his tools.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone is free to request adminship at any time, except in rare cases where Arbcom has put in restrictions. Friday (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in controversial circumstances. This is controversy.  I would have to reconfirm RFA, or outright RFA to get them back as I understand. Regards, <b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M ercury </b> 00:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I meant via RFA. Sorry for being unclear.  Friday (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe me, reconfirmation is not especially fun (I should know). I'd advise Mercury to wait a couple of months before standing for a reconfirmation RfA. WaltonOne 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In the end I found this whole thing ironic, I guess, since you blocked User:Privatemusings for essentially the mistake of getting into too many controversies at once, and then you got hounded here for essentially committing the same offense. There's a life lesson here, one I know well from playing poker. If you wait to figure out how someone plays their cards until you are in a hand with them, it's too late; in the long run it'll cost you too many chips to figure them out. You got to figure other people out by paying attention to the hands you are not in. In other words, in poker and in life, it's not enough to learn from your mistakes, you've got to learn to learn from other people's mistakes. Since most people never figure that out, you'll come out ahead in the long run. Anyway, that's just my two cents worth. -- Kendrick7talk 21:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)