Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Actually, bearing in mind the comments on the DRV on both sides, you can not use recall to gain an upper hand in a discussion. That would be abusing the recall process. I'm removing myself from the cat. Use the ] to include arbitration if you must. Regards, ] 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, bearing in mind the comments on the DRV on both sides, you can not use recall to gain an upper hand in a discussion. That would be abusing the recall process. I'm removing myself from the cat. Use the ] to include arbitration if you must. Regards, ] 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
'''Whoah!'''. Just curious, did you think recall would come at a time when you ''weren't'' embrolied in a controversy? Or did you think people who wanted to recall you would be on your side? Admins open to recall is a voluntary membership category, but removing yourself from the category as soon as people actually want to recall you seems to be ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The Tightrope Trophy, representing the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls, is hereby awarded by Bishonen to Mercury for his amazing balancing act at Homeopathy.
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this Barnstar for all your work protecting wikipedia from the vandals, in particular the revert and protection of my talk page, Thanks! Tiddly-Tom16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar
For being with us for so long, and for fighting for this cause for years to come. Come, celebrate, raise a blass Marlith/C02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can take credit for this one. I thought Orion4 seemed very similar to Sm565 and asked Mercury in e-mail to run a check. Whig (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And I looked at the edits of all accounts and came up with a conclusion. I have asked a checkuser to confirm. Mercury03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I had some dialogue with Orion4 on his talk page. I hope it was appropriate. I don't have any more to add there. -- Whig (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And he's contesting the block. Your comment on Orion4's talk page indicates the block was due to checkuser. Was this done off-site? - auburnpilottalk02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what's going on here. Do you intend for the page to stay unprotected? I don't want to violate the spirit of page protection, even if the page is unprotected for the moment. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Auburn: Dmcdevit confirmed with checkuser. He can answer anymore questions on that.
Raymond: You can restore your edits, I have unprotected the page. I usually revert edits made after protection as a consistent thing. But nonetheless, the page is not protected anymore as I have blocked the socks.
I hadn't read every single comment, no. As I understand it, Angela hadn't specifically requested the seventh AFD (despite Durova claiming otherwise) but nevertheless wants the article deleted by her other comments. >Radiant<11:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? First you complain that I make that comment next to my other comment, and then you also complain when I move it to the talk page because of your complaint? Are you now going to complain that I responded to something that you wanted a response to? >Radiant<11:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I notice you removed an entry from the blacklist with an OTRS link. Would it be possible to provide some insight into this. Thanks --Herby14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The office had a discussion with the individuals responsible (or the other way around). This should not happen again, was the outcome. Mercury14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - the request to list looked valid. I was not aware any blacklistings were dealt with in such a way. Could you please then remove it from the log so that it is properly recorded. Thanks --Herby14:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Recall
Your user-page currently indicates that you are "open to recall". In light of your inappropriate and disruptive closure of the (perennially unsuccessful) Angela Beesley AFD debate, and for the reasons enumerated here (including but not limited to your involvement in the Durova scandal), I solemnly request that you reinstate your request on meta for removal of sysop access immediately upon receipt of this message. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb15:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
On the Deletion review, you said to ask on your talk page for details. I'm asking for details, and am tempted to endorse the recall. You seem to have singlehandedly overruled a community decision with participation of many people. Please explain how you see a recall going. --AnonEMouse16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe not. You were the closer, you could have just said the deletion arguments were convincing, that wasn't out of the question. Then you'd still have faced the deletion review, but not de-mop-itation.... Anyway, do give details on how you see a recall going. --AnonEMouse16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You require six uninvolved editors. Then I will hold a discussion in my userspace. If after the discussion I feel I no longer have the trust of the community, I will make the meta permissions request. Mercury17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Editors requesting need to be in good standing. 1000 edits prior to DEC 1, no blocks in the last year for disrupting the project, and not currently opposed by me in AC elections. I may add more later, using common sense. Regards, Mercury17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that simply using arbitrary criteria to make it unlikely that six editors can be found? Might I ask what's the point of that, considering you already note that if you disagree with these hypothetical six, you'll simply not recall yourself? I'm not saying that I want you recalled (I don't), I'm just saying that if you and others use it this way, the entire recall process is completely pointless. >Radiant<18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate you for recall at this time, as I do not have confidence in your ability to judge consensus properly. Ral315 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, bearing in mind the comments on the DRV on both sides, you can not use recall to gain an upper hand in a discussion. That would be abusing the recall process. I'm removing myself from the cat. Use the normal methods to include arbitration if you must. Regards, Mercury18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoah!. Just curious, did you think recall would come at a time when you weren't embrolied in a controversy? Or did you think people who wanted to recall you would be on your side? Admins open to recall is a voluntary membership category, but removing yourself from the category as soon as people actually want to recall you seems to be gaming the system. --AnonEMouse18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
