User talk:MBisanz/Recall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

re-stand for RFA[edit]

There isn't a solid system for this, you might want to spell out how it's handled, or give links to similar re-confirmation RFAs. I believe that currently even if a B-Cat decides your reconfirmation failed, you stil have to ask a stweard to remove the bit from you. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that [1] would permit a bcat to contact the steward, point them at the failed rfa, and that would take care of things. MBisanz talk 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... That language has been subtly changed. It used to say {paraphrasing) that "where local sytems are in place for removal of access" that they should be used. The shift to "consensus" is actually a large one. Thank you for the link. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall attempt on hold for now[edit]

Just a note to anybody wondering that I haven't started the recall request yet, pending User:Brrryce's response to this question I posed on his talk page. He's a fairly inexperienced user, and I want to make sure he's clear on how things work before I formally get the ball rolling. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okey. I'm standing by for whatever happens. MBisanz talk 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has confirmed that he does wish to proceed. I have posted a notice at all required fora, and the forty-eight hours is starting now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon one deletion??[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No. --Kbdank71 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. DRV exists for a reason. J.delanoygabsadds 19:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Things like this are bound to happen when an inexperienced user gets pissed off about a deleted article. I think Mbisanz might consider revising his recall policy somehow, perhaps so a proceeding like this can't even be initiated without endorsement by a minimum number of editors -- maybe even with a minimum number of edits each. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:31, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Speedy close - clueless new user needs a bit of hand holding. Obvious case of nose-out-of-joint. Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable IARing on somebody else's recall process; I don't think that's why I was designated clerk. I did try to make sure that the initiator understood how things worked before filing, but ultimately I'm going to defer to the process as MBisanz laid it out. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. This is pointless, and I endorse Rklawton's speedy close recommendation. Horologium (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - We are talking about one contested deletion? Let's get real. -- Alexf(talk) 19:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. WP:DRV is the proper venue, not this sledgehammer to crack a nut. Seems MBisanz didn't make a deletion decision that no reasonable Admin could not have made. --Rodhullandemu 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the recall request based on a single deletion is not warranted, and that the user who filed the request would be well advised to withdraw it and pursue the DRV. That being said, MBisanz's recall criteria provide that to trigger a recall, five administrators must endorse the request within 48 hours. That seems highly unlikely to happen here, and therefore, if the request is not withdrawn, it will probably cause less drama to allow the 48 hours to pass with (presumably) the required endorsements not having been made, rather than to IAR speedy it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I think that MBisanz's close was appropriate, and that the recall is not warranted. -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No. Closing an AfD is not an abuse of admin tools. WP:DRV is the way to go. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. I'm no great fan of the admin corps, but even I'd allow a little more slack than to take up arms over a single dubious deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree - this is ridiculous- there is no way the recall can be warranted - Fastily (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This is clearly Vexatious litigation over the deletion. I can't believe this was accepted and allowed to go forward. The user that started this process, instead of using WP:DRV, should be admonished for doing so. This recall request is harassment plain and simple, and it should be ended post-haste. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user is entitled as per MBisanz's recall criteria. That you take exception to this recall request is neither here nor there, and nor does it warrant any "adminishment", by you or anyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not vexatious. The initiating user didn't seem to know about DRV until I suggested it to (him?) (her?) them. WilyD 21:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No of course not, but be aware that new users might not understand the different standards for desysopping administrators, so I have every reason to believe it was done in good faith. Nevertheless, for future reference, please see WP:DRV, and bear in mind that desysopping an administrator usually comes after egregious abuse of the tools/position, and not after AfD closes (he's probably closed more than all the admins put together, so what would we do without him there? ;)). PeterSymonds (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO Hiberniantears (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No abuse of admin tools. Agree with Newyorkbrad that it is best for the person asking for recall to withdraw the request. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. We have DRV for this. Useight (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a chance This is why recall is not a functional idea. Chillum 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a curious non-sequitor. Seems to me that it's working quite well in this case. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider a page full of people stating the obvious to be working quite well. Working quite well would be if we just sent the guy to DRV and went off to write an encyclopedia(without a formalized process for determining the obvious). Chillum 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What appears to be obvious to you is not quite so obvious to me. The recall criteria require a number of admins to support the request, not a bunch of mates turning up to say that the request is ridiculous. Why not let's see if any turn up to do so, as per the criteria MBisanz laid out? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry it is not obvious to you. Chillum 21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • heavens no. –xeno (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No abuse of administrative tools. If we need to be desyoping some bad administrators (which we do) MBisanz is not one of them. Tiptoety talk 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and second that the newbie needs to learn a bit more about this process. He has raised what is, in fact, a frivolous complaint, and if he were a more experienced user I'd be suggesting some blowback on the filer. As he is new, I will presume innocence and ignorance. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – (edit conflict) as I stated at WP:DRV "You have got to be kidding!" This is nothing but a frivolous and vexatious attack at an admin by a user who is pissed off and disgruntled because his article (soon to be two, both of which the creator has a clear conflict of interest) got deleted. This sounds a lot like that portion of the novel/film Band of Brothers where Easy Company's Commander wanted to punish his own Executive Officer for failing to clean the latrine, even though no one told the XO that the inspection time was changed; the XO appealed by requesting trial by Court-Martial. Needless to say, it was put aside. MuZemike 20:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is, I suppose an admin could possibly be recalled or emergency–desysopped for deleting a really major page (or a bunch of pages as indicated in one of the recent ArbCom cases) or by pushing the little red button, but this isn't one of them. MuZemike 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although it's clear where consensus is leaning I support keeping this open for the agreed upon time. A speedy close just adds to the plaintifs percieved injustice. Playing it out both limits further complaints about the process and demonstrates that MBisanz takes his recall pledge seriously.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note as well that this isn't a consensus-based process; editors opposed to recall do not have any direct effect on the final outcome. What matters is whether or not five administrators are prepared to endorse recall. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. Just couldn't decide on the best phrasing. Almost used "sentiments" but I didn't want it to sound like it was simply emotion based.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No As an uninvolved admin. That's one fewer admin to try to get five out of.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. As Wehwalt said, one fewer to try to get five out of. DRV is the correct venue for this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Yes, just to stir up drama. I don't mean yes I'm one of the 5 admins; I mean that If 5 admins vote yes within 48 hours, then I'm fine with that ... Matt will re-do RFA and pass, and the world will not end. "Admin recall criteria" were popular for a little while at RFA, as a way of pushing back against a perception that admins were a higher power, out of reach of common mortals. I think this silliness helps demonstrates that voluntary admin recall criteria, while noble, probably cause more trouble than they're worth, which is why they're now out of fashion at RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is not POINTY, I am not sure what is. Tiptoety talk 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the perception that admins are "a higher power, out of reach of common mortals" somehow dissipated while I wasn't looking then? 'Cos I can still see it from here. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've disagreed with some of MBisanz's AfD closes in the past, and I very much hope to continue to be able to do so in the future. DRV is the proper mechanism to resolve this dispute, and I am firmly opposed to recalling an admin over such an issue. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way is this a recall issue Filer Brrryce needs to understand recall is not for one case; even if it were, this AFD had no clear consensus and was well within closing admin discretion and MBisanz gave a sound reason for his deletion. This is no way abuse of admin privileges. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - As an uninvolved administrator, I do not feel that Matt has in any way abused his tools on this issue. As others have said, perhaps our new user should consider WP:DRV as the proper venue. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we don't desysop over one minor action - that happened to be a correct, non-abusive one. Majorly talk 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) No — Jake Wartenberg 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahahahaha. We can delete this now. Synergy 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can if you want to make yourself a laughing stock. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? When you just made yourself a laughing stock. I'm not an admin. Troll someone else Malleus. Synergy 21:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. I'll just leave you children to your fun then. Perhaps a few adults will pop in later. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite no - the close on a clusterfuck of an AFD was a reasonable judgment call. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the correct close of an AfD? The correct response would be "don't be so f***ing silly", but the AGF response is "No". Black Kite 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. MBisanz is a terrific admin. The complaint here holds no water. Kingturtle (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck No If every admin who made one vaguely controversial edit had to stand for recall then there would either be no admins or no encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe this is a vote, but simply looking for 5 admins who will ask for a re-RFA. Not that there is a good reason for it, unless MBisanz wants to be a test case?--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but hey, there are still 1,500 more admins still to comment, right? :D Happy‑melon 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, positively NOT: I am not an admin, but I have to speak up here - we need more admins like MBisanz. This smacks of a pointy proceeding initiated by an editor throwing his toys out of his pram in a tantrum, but I will of course assume good faith. – ukexpat (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is like calling for Gordon Brown's head on a plate because your bin was missed by the garbage man. Absolute bollocks.  GARDEN  23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Admin used good judgement, has consistently done so in the past, this was not a mistake, and would not be a recallable offense even if it had been a mistake... No. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No One deletion is not enough to institute a recall. In addition, I perfectly agree with the deletion call. Captain panda 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, everyone else here is right. — neuro(talk) 01:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for this It is no secret that I am sometimes not satisfied by MB's afd closings, because I've sometimes protested them at DRV. I think his occasional willingness to override expressed consensus and his occasional tendency to use closes to express his own views might need discussion. But the proper course for this is first rfc, on the general question with multiple examples, and then conceivably--just conceivably--a recall on that basis, but not over a single close. This was not a standard Wikipedia article situation, and I did not participate in the AfD because I did not really know how we should handle it--looking back at it, I might possibly have suggested significant rewriting, not outright deletion. But this close was reasonable and I would not !vote to overturn it at Deletion Review--let alone carry the matter further. I can imagine a single close bad enough to revoke adminship, but it would be very different from this. I do not remember having ever seen one by anyone that would by itself as a single close justify a recall. DGG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile on "No". Because it had to be done. JPG-GR (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious no, was a good close, but suggest someone work with Bryce to explain how things work since xe seems confused rather than trolling. May not understand what DRV is and its function. StarM 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way For one deletion, which consensus supports? rootology (C)(T) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come on too harsh over ONE deletion. We have DRV for a reason. SQLQuery me! 21:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - and for the record, I think this illustrates the greatest weakness of recall procedures as they exist now:
  1. It's a major waste of time for those who perhaps should be recalled. There'll be much huffing and puffing back and forth, much canvassing, many recriminations, and a whole lot of hot gas being blown about. But in the end the ones who should be recalled will find a way to wiggle out of it, even if the unimaginable happens and their behavior is so egregious that people vote yes despite knowing what the repercussions are.
  2. It's a minor waste of time for those who shouldn't be recalled, because they'll follow the process in good faith even when accusations are made in bad faith. But at least it'll be quickly resolved. Perhaps not a complete waste of time, as good admins should be periodically reminded of the confidence the community has in them. arimareiji (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Respect for MBisanz[edit]

While I personally haven't and won't make myself open to recall, I applaud MBisanz for his willingness to stick by his word and follow the recall process he posted.--Aervanath (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.  GARDEN  22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: MBisanz is not equal to MZMcBride[edit]

Sorry for stating the obvious, but I know I always get confused between the two and given that there is an open ArbCom case, probably worth making the point here. Ronnotel (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you'll now cause more confusion among those who don't realize what that use of "!" means. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy now? ;-) J.delanoygabsadds 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!=. The interesting part is that it's a real redirect. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
"≠" is right in the little edit section below the save page button, and that's a fairly standard character... Horologium (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're clearing things up, I should state that I am not the same as User:Hibernian. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Practically Perfect editor, though. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was once almost hit by a lightning bug, and could have been killed. No, wait! It was a lightning bolt. The terms are so much alike, it is hard to keep them straight. Did the Titanic hit an iceberg or a Goldberg? Edison (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love firefly! Wait, did you mean the series or the not-so-likable film of the same name? this is all so confusing. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had in mind Rufus T. Firefly. But it is all very confusing, so I appreciates your quandry. Edison (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball[edit]

Think it's time. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:30, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, I won't close this early. First, MBisanz's criteria make no provision for early closing, and I don't want to IAR on his recall criteria. Second, this isn't a consensus thing; if every user on Wikipedia except for five shows up to oppose the recall, but the other five are admins who show up to endorse it, then the recall succeeds. I think Brad's advice above was characteristically excellent: if you think this recall procedure is a waste of time, just ignore it. That's the way that will minimize the drama. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why having loose recall criteria (or indeed any recall criteria at all) is a bad idea. It wastes time of people, causes unnecessary drama, and no one is really left happy. Majorly talk 21:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If the wording is such that any proposed recall must be allowed to exist for 2 days regardless of how ridiculous it is, the criteria needs some serious tweaking. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:53, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)
What Majorly said. 5 admins should never be able to override a clear consensus anyways, just put this beast to bed. Chillum 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Equazcion: I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.
To Majorly: I agree with you... partly. Having loose recall criteria is a waste of the community's time. We have seen that more than once, with admins who at least gave the appearance (whether you agree that they actually did or not) of changing how things work mid process. However these aren't at all loose, they're very well structured with a clear start, clear process steps and clear success criteria. All MBisanz and his clerk have to do is wait. Either there are 5 admins or there aren't. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally I agree with Lar here. But then again, I am also a strong believer in Process is important. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Lar: Your suspicions don't mean too much, since by your own admission they're based on a certain unrelated past event that you're still crying about. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:57, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm open to recall, and I keep my criteria simple. Recall me at will, but only if you're God. Rklawton (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you're not. :) ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found this discussion exceedingly depressing, and it has made me question whether I am any longer prepared to remain part of a community that is so eager to change the rules when they don't suit a favoured son. If this recall request is not handled correctly, in accordance with the agreed criteria, then that will be the last that wikipedia sees of me. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, you are basically arguing against common sense. Nothing wrong was done so why go through a whole big procedure? We don't get through the motions in a strict adherence to rules around here, we give way to the rules in favor of common sense. If you want a place where procedure and rules are sacred then perhaps this is not the place. Chillum 22:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in honesty. What do you believe in? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is lying? This is all very transparent. We even have a rule describing how and when we can skip the rules. That seems very honest to me. Chillum 22:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree on one thing at least, that this is not the place for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So long and best wishes! (what was *that* all about?) Rklawton (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was obviously a frivolous nomination and should be closed ASAP. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have to waste anyone's time. It requires 5 to agree, not 500 to disagree. Don't waste your time on it if it's not worth wasting time on. --Onorem♠Dil 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If 5 agree and 500 disagree, it's not going to happen. However, there's always a chance that 5 newbies, for example Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parappa664, might get adminship in next 24 hours, and add a veto here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that unlikely situation, I would assume that MBisanz would re-stand for RFA. (although I'm fairly sure new admins aren't considered 'administrators in good standing' per their ground rules. At that point, time would "have" to be wasted. At this point in the process, the only people wasting time are those who want to be wasting time. --Onorem♠Dil 02:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that unlikely situation my support would be contingent in not being open to recall. Chillum 02:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice it's now a redlink, as the user was indef-blocked and his joke request for adminship was jettisoned. So we can't count on a veto from that guy now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate snowball anything. Let the process proceed to its specified ending. What harm is there in letting it run out its string? Is the ending in doubt, so someone feels compelled to end it early? I think not!Edison (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Thank you to everyone who has commented. Steve is correct, there is no SNOW provision. Newyorkbrad is also correct that there is no harming in letting process proceed. One of the things I have been committed to in my time on WP has been personal admin accountability. I want to be accountable to every editor. While some complaints may not be with merit, the only way I can ensure that every valid complaint make it in to the pool, is to set a low bar for inclusion. Of course, if anyone has suggestions on ways I can improve my recall criteria, I am open to them. MBisanz talk 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that they're working just fine :D Happy‑melon 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of saying there's no harm, you cant expect people to not get involved in something like this, so it really does end up wasting time, even if it's of their own accord. That and, allowing newbies to do this sends a message that's contrary to what we try to foster generally on Wikipedia -- that cooperation and collaboration are paramount, and you can't just make a possibly-disruptive stink about things when you don't get your way. I'd suggest amending the criteria to be more in line with Wikipedia's general policies, if only so that newbies don't get the wrong idea about what is acceptable here. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:37, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)
You are amongst those wasting time. MBisanz's criteria for recall ask for five admins to support the recall. Not for all his mates to say it's ridiculous. You didn't choose the criteria and neither did I. Let the person who did live or die by them. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you read above the problem as I see it is more far-reaching than inconveniencing the involved people. It sends the wrong message as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:45, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. My view is that the wrong message is sent when rules are changed because they no longer suit a ruling elite. Your mileage may of course vary. Don't much care to be honest. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling elite? A bunch of mates showing up? Seriously man people are objecting to the attempt at recall because it is baseless, not because a bunch of cronies are trying to protect some sort of power structure. We ignore rules to benefit Wikipedia, not to protect those in power. Chillum 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec)You (Malleus) seem to be confusing "vast majority" with "ruling elite". But yes we do tailor the rules towards what would best suit the end goal -- just as any system of rules operates. Rules aren't an end unto their own. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:56, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to get back to me when you finally understand what I actually said. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that nobody here understands you. Or it could be that we understand you and disagree. Chillum 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either is of course possible, but I'm certain you know where I'd be placing my bet. "None of the above." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, good to see you doing the honourable thing despite peer pressure not to. WilyD 23:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those calling for "speedy close" or whatever... miss how the voluntary recall process works in general and specifically how MBisanz has outlined his particular implementation of the process. Support is fine, sure, but just let it go for 48 hours and see if 5 admins turn up to endorse it or not (Hint: I won't be one of the endorsing admins) instead of all this other stuff which is a distraction (although surely gratifying to Matthew). As HappyMelon says, this process is working fine. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand his criteria just fine. I simply question them. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:07, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
      • You go right ahead and do that, at length, while also complaining about time wasted. The irony is not lost on me. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Talking to you is always such a pleasurable experience, Lar. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:12, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
          • Would that it were likewise. You're forever stuck in my mind as the fellow who messed around with the admin categories. (now deleted but it's in the history I guess this is just another extension of that messing about, eh? ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh and to answer your concern: As I said I'm questioning the criteria in the interest of avoiding wasted time in the future. I think there have been many discussions that took place on Wikipedia with similar interests. Even suggestions regarding the avoidance of wasted time do require time be spent on discussion. I do hope the irony wasn't wasted on you in those situations either. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
          • I think I missed your concrete suggestions for improving MBisanz's process. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow I forgot all about that admin cat thing. If you've decided to forever judge me on the merits of an incident long passed, then I really can't help you. Every question and every response is sarcastic. I simply can't converse with a person who does that, I'm sorry. Best to you sir in all that you do. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:43, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
However, it would be an honourable course for the nominator, in view of comments above, to reconsider his position. If the good of the encyclopedia is to prevail, this might be thought to be an unnecessary sideshow, and that is a matter for him, and him alone. --Rodhullandemu 02:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and I agree. However a quick scan of User:MBisanz/Recall doesn't show a specific way to do that. :) Might have missed it though! ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's implicit in any process that its initiator has the right to withdraw it should subsequent events throw new light thereon; I doubt anyone setting up recall criteria foresees all the possible outcomes. It may be that in some cases others will come along and support for somewhat different criteria, but should the threshold of recall be reach, the fact that it has done so for different reasons should certainly be an issue for any subsequent reconfirmation. Meanwhile, I would throw it back to the nominator based on the best outcome for the encyclopedia as a whole. --Rodhullandemu 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem implicit, doesn't it? But since I just got done praising this process as pretty airtight, it's an omission, if a minor one. I better go tweak mine, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, if the nominator withdraws his call for recall and there haven't been any administrators supporting it yet, I will close this. My read is in accordance with Rodhullandemu's: it's implicit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that the filer won't be any happier when his self-created Jae Bryson article is deleted after its AfD run ends in a day or three. - Dravecky (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps MBisanz might want to consider tightening up his requirements to initiate recall? 3 autoconfirmed users within X weeks/months? It won't stop all trivialness but some. Should MBisanz cock up, he can be sure that more than one wikipedian would notice. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly.[edit]

Way to scare off a potentially useful editor. Someone's new and doesn't know how things work, and asks to desysop someone who isn't you. Why are you so offended by this? This is one of the times when WP:CIVIL should actually be enforced, so it's no surprise it hasn't been. Giggy (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Collective you. Almost everyone on this page - either those who were shocked by the prospect of someone disagreeing with the groupthink, or those who didn't tell them to stop being dicks, should be ashamed.[reply]

Launching a desysop attempt shouldn't be undertaken with such reckless abandon. I think the level of patience and tolerance shown is laudible, if unnecessary in this case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a distaste towards the idea of a person demanding a guys head on a platter because of a disagreement is not really a Wikipedia thing. I think it is a far more universal reaction. While some people have crossed the line here saying "almost everyone on the page" should be ashamed is just not accurate. Chillum 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on! I ask again as above: How is deleting one page, aside from a major page or the Main Page, considered an abuse of the tools? This is comparable to that idiot judge who sued that guy in New York for $54 million over a pair of cruddy trousers (cf Pearson v. Chung). It was a vexatious and frivolous recall. Finally, I don't care if a user has been on Wikipedia for two seconds or two years—you definitely do not suggest that another user is a racist (see [2]; unless the user proclaims him/herself as one, obviously). MuZemike 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought deleting the Main Page was considered a rite of passage for all admins? ;) Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be done anymore (easily at least), software has been changed to make the page undeletable. MBisanz talk 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pfft...I doubt anyone would fall for that twice ;P Tothwolf (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried (recently?)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recall closed: unsuccessful[edit]

Forty-eight hours have now elapsed, with zero administrators expressing support for MBisanz's recall. I do not (to put it mildly) see any reason to exercise my discretionary power to extend the recall, so I am closing it. You've been a great peanut gallery; don't forget to tip your servers clerk. Thank you, and good night. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve, and thank you to all the kind words of encouragement I received. As I said, if anyone has suggestions on ways I can improve my recall criteria, please feel free to let me know. MBisanz talk 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revoke them and expect people to apply evidence to policies showing some sort of misuse of your tools to arbcom if they want to de-admin you. Chillum 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. An unnecessary sideshow, even for 48 hours; removal of the bit should be a more considered and serious process than this, and it demonstrates how easy it is for an Admin to be held to ransom for one event. It is exactly this weakness that convinced me not to subscribe to recall in my own RfA. --Rodhullandemu 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, if you had just blanked/speedy archived everything that wasn't relevent (essentially, every comment not by SarcasticIdealist), it would've gone fine. It should be apparent that your criteria worked perfectly fine, and arrived at the correct outcome. Your behaviour has been perfect, and there's no ethical obligation upon you to comprimise yourself and your ideals for the peanut gallery - just send them away if they show up. WilyD 02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to avoid this in the future[edit]

I don't agree with the idea of desysopping over this, and I think it was an overreaction, but what set it off was a very poor Afd close by MBisanz. By "poor" I mean not just bad judgment, although it was a bad call because it didn't meet the standards laid out in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. What was at least as bad, perhaps worse, was the explanation, or rather lack of explanation for the close. Bryyce had every reason to believe that a no-consensus result would lead to keeping the article. Bryce doubly had reason to believe the article would be kept because no decent case had been made, by the end of the AfD, that the article still lacked reliable sources, or that notability hadn't been established. MBisanz closes quite a few AfDs (and has continued to close quite a few since this incident) and should be familiar with the policies involved. Citing WP:SYN, WP:OR and WP:RS is absolutely inadequate as a deletion reason in this case, since, as WP:DGFA states, the question isn't just whether an article violates policy, but "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy". WP:SYN, WP:OR or WP:RS can only justify a deletion if the subject of the article didn't actually exist and was made up out of whole cloth by the article's authors. As deletion reasons, those policies address the subject, not just the article. The existence of an African American community in Davenport, Iowa was beyond any shadow of a doubt, as reliable sources in the article, present in the article by the time of the AfD close, clearly stated.

With such an incredibly poor case for deletion, and such a closely divided discussion result, MBisanz had the obligation to give more than a one-line explanation that didn't explain what it was about the delete arguments that made him agree with them. (Even in the five-day-long DRV, MBisanz' explanation is barely explanatory, and it's inconsistent with what was said in the closing.) When you don't explain your decisions, you invite assumptions of bad faith. And you look arrogant. And you invite anger. As an administrator, he should know that explaining his decisions, especially when they're going to disappoint an editor, is an extremely important element in maintaining a pleasant, productive atmosphere here, and maintaining morale of editors. It goes with the mop (that so many admins seem to like to plate with gold).

I think it's telling that other admins have expended so much sympathy on MBisanz here, and so much shock and horror that someone he's angered would nominate him for recall. A little more respect for the people you're ruling against -- shown by taking the time to think through an AfD deletion without a raw consensus and then to explain yourself when you not only disappoint one side, but surprise it -- should be standard operating procedure. But apparently that failure wasn't enough to notice here.

The fact that this was an article about an African American community should have made everyone just a little more careful to make the process look fair, not unfair. I don't think that's too much to ask (nor does it give anyone any special favors). The insult wasn't just to an editor, but apparently to a community that editor cared about, perhaps one the editor came from. The fact that so many editors at the DRV indicated that they were endorsing the close because they didn't like the recall attempt is, quite frankly, one of the things that's so pathetic about Wikipedia.

And if we wanted to look at this situation solely from the standpoint of what was best for Wikipedia, consider how this website hurt itself, probably just a bit, but still hurt itself, by making a potential enemy out of an editor, one who apparently has some influence in the wider world by editing a publication and writing books. It's probably inevitable that admins will make enemies by doing their jobs here, perhaps it's inevitable that they'll make some people consider Wikipedia their enemy. But you make a lot fewer when you do the job right, by showing respect to the people you're dealing with. -- Noroton (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested if DRV agrees with your assessment of the AfD closing. I think it was a reasonable closing. Chillum 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the least interesting thing about this, for me. Maybe it's interesting in some kind of wikipolitics sense, and that bores me. It doesn't look like it will prevent the article from reappearing in new form -- that will happen either way, although the new article can always be shot down again at AfD. Pointing out what went wrong and getting encyclopedic information in Wikipedia is the important thing. I explained at length on that page and this one just what was not reasonable. I'm hoping it will have an effect on future closes by admins. -- Noroton (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD closing was probably wrong. But the evidence is pretty clear that it's an honest mistake from a guy who closes ~100 AFDs/day. WilyD 11:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't give a rats... about who the article was about. The fact that this was an article about an African American community should have made everyone just a little more careful to make the process look fair --- so in other words, the only way to be fair is to treat articles about the African American community differently and unfairly? It should have special protections because it is about African Americans? Sorry. Not buying it.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. "(nor does it give anyone any special favors)" 2. The world is the way it is, not the way you wish it would be. That means that someone who wants to be effective acts in ways that don't cause unnecessary offense. That's not the same as "treat articles about the African American community differently and unfairly". I said precisely what I meant, and meant in this case. We modify our behavior depending on other people's sensitivities all the time. A little more care when an action is open to misinterpretation does not mean we make a different decision, it means we recognize a potential problem, think it over a bit more and take more care to explain it. The more authority you have, the more important it is to do that. People in authority need to be careful about the way they appear, more so in some situations than others. You know that. I'm saying this is one of those cases. Given the unnecessary fuss here, and considering that it's seldom that hard to be discreet (no more than treating your boss differently than the way you'd treat a sibling), it's not a radical suggestion, but buy what you want. -- Noroton (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for blocking for alleged sock-puppetry[edit]

You have one week (as defined by me) to explain why you blocked me for allegedly being a sock-puppet without ever notifying me. If you do not respond I will move towards having you recalled.

--JoeWallack (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for an oppose section?[edit]

Hi MBisanz,

What would happen in the unrealistic example that 995 senior editors thought you'd done fine but 5 wanted you to go?

Or more realistically 5 wanted you to go and 95 wanted you to stay? Have I spotted a flaw in your criteria?

PS Do I get the award for the first query here about the principle of this rather than anything you've done?

ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a former clerk for this process (feel free to re-add me if you need another one, MBisanz), here's my take: assuming the five were admins (and not merely senior editors), MBisanz would honour his recall process by standing in a reconfirmation RFA, which he would win handily. I think it would be a little silly to subject us to a reconfirmation RFA under those circumstances (hence my own recall rules), but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a flaw. Steve Smith (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz/Recall&oldid=1142474323"