Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mercury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Lar, and others make a good point. Regardless of the merits of recall, I did enter the commitment. I can understand that some are uncomfortable. If the community sees fit that I should serve the project as an administrator, I'll accept a nomination no sooner than three months, and that may be too soon. But we will see. For now, there is one article that is on my list for GA. A special thank you to those who engaged my responses in the oppose section. Thank you all for participating. Mercury 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mercury

(17/36/10); withdrawn by candidate at 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury (talk · contribs) - This is a reconfirmation RFA after a recall. Mercury 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

  • Hi Mercury. Good to see you back. This reconfirmation appears rather sparseof information. Are you open to answering questions? Spartaz Humbug! 21:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Editing the articles is addictive. Absolutely I 'll answer questions. Yes. Regards, Mercury 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. OK. Please can you explain from your point of view why you think the community should reconfirm your adminship? Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think historically, from the logs, there is no real abuse in the past. I've protected a page I should not have, and incorrectly closed an AFD. These are mistakes, but I'll assure no pattern. I've learned from them. I'm not much of a wordsmith, but I try. I can do some cleaning up with the mop. The tools are also helpful to me on OTRS related items. I don't have to go thru extra steps. I hope this helps. Thanks you, Mercury 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Can you tell us the circumstances of the recall, with links? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. User:Mercury/Recall and User:Mercury/RFC with talk pages. Regards, Mercury 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Do you agree that access to talk archives is useful when seeking to get the measure of a candidate? Can you tell us why all of your talk archives are blanked? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are important. I'm seeking to restore them now. Regards, Mercury 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Linked from my talk page. You may have to see the actual page history from my main talk to see recent messages, I don't think those were moved over by the archiver. Mercury 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to interject but why do your talk page archives still say 'This page has been blanked as a courtesy' then? Am I looking in the wrong place? Nick mallory (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Will you remain open to recall on the same basis as last time? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel particular comfortable with the process. Was it fairly applied, I am not sure. The reasons for this recall request were the opposition to my AC candidacy, and an AFD. I don't know if any sysop should be recalled on two or three incidents like that. People make mistakes. People learn. To answer your question, I don't think I will join this voluntary category again. Regards, Mercury 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

5. What have you learned from the events that lead to your recall? Sean William @ 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all people are meant to do things like arbitrate. I'm not going to be one of them. Writing articles and cleaning the place makes me happy enough. OTRS work makes me happy enough. I've also learned you must not close AFD or any discussion / protect pages where a COI may be perceived, these things can not happen with the tools. Thats what I learned as far as the AFD and page protection goes. I'm still a little unclear on how to relate the block of !! to the recall, CW has not edited since the 11th. Regards, ~~

6. After your recall, you said that you started over under a new username, why did you change your mind and come back to your old account? Mr.Z-man 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It felt sneaky. I could not do it. Mercury 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Can you explain what this edit was for and elaborate on the edit summary?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit was to blank my talk page. The edit summary was a SHA 512 identity commitment. Regards, Mercury 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mercury before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Out of curiosity, why isn't this WP:RFA/Mercury_2 or _3 or whatever? Avruchtalk 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

His previous RfAs should be located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Navou, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Navou 2, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Navou 3. He had a name change awhile ago. Cheers, Keilana(recall) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I may have got to it before he did, but this was one seriously deformed RfA a few minutes ago. No questions, no statement, things in the wrong place, etc. Clearly a hastily made decision. For whatever its worth- Avruchtalk 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not feel the boilerplate questions were needed, and I made statements elsewhere. Nothing in haste, and the RFA was intended the way is was. Regards, Mercury 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support I personally have had positive interaction, and I'm afraid the pile on oppose leaves a bitter taste. Whatever the negatives, and there are many, I personally think that Mercury getting the bit back would benefit more than it would hinder. Pedro :  Chat  22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    What makes them pile-on? I haven't !voted, so I'm not asking from a particular decision on Mercury, but I'm thinking many RfAs of established contributors receive this many opposes and still pass. Avruchtalk 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Not at 10-2 oppose/support at this point they don't pass. But any how "pile on" is maybe a bad choice of words. However my support stands, and as much as I respect you Avruch (and that you have not as yet commented in oppose/support/neutral) I'd be pleased if people decided not to badger me about supporting an RfA that's clearly going to fail. It's my choice, and I believe a resysop is good for Wikipedia. Best. Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sure, sorry it came across as badgering. I was just curious about the pile-on, should've asked at your talk page. Avruchtalk 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Merkinsmum. I'm going to AGF; Mercury is comitted to the project. He knows what he's doing and I still trust him with the tools. Mr.Z-man 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Mercury's no monster, sure there were some contentious and rash decisions of late, but nothing really bad. I don't even think he gave up 'the mop' in controversial circumstances. RMHED (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Spebi 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Moral support - You'll bounce back. In the meantime, keep it fun. The Transhumanist 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong support: In my opinion, the initial recall was just a backlash of people's strong feelings over that AfD. You clearly have a good record as an admin in general - it was the action that was controversial, not the person. We should continue to trust the person. Nihiltres{t.l} 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support--MONGO 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support should get the tools back.   jj137 ♠ 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Mercury plainly regrets his decision. His admission of error is commendable. I could name many users that have acted with far less maturity than Mercury, refused to admit any error in having done so, and retained their sysophood. I am inclined to grant him another chance. — Dan | talk 06:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Full support. Although, I strongly urge Mercury to IAR and simply ask for his admin bit back, which he has a right to do at any time, for the sake of Wikipedia. Recall is a great idea, but more often than not the "mob" focuses on insignificant details, rather than the over-all issues. I still trust you with tools, and thank you for wanting to help us as an admin again. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    No offense, Ned Scott, but this question has been asked and answered several times. Mercury did ask to get his bit back, and the bureaucrat declined. Risker (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. He's a good admin. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support You were a good admin. I still trust you. SQLQuery me! 07:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support so that he may resume his wonderful contributions to cow tipping. Really, Merc had to make some tough decisions these last few weeks, and perhaps there were better ways to handle what happened. Overall I think he's been prudent, and certainly he has the experience. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Way too much mountain, not enough molehill. I see no reason why he shouldn't get the bit back. --Charitwo talk 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support (Formerly dead neutral).I think this editor has been a pretty damn good administrator for his time, always willing to assume good faith and help out where needed. His response to the recall was unproffesional, yes, but not enough so that he shouldn't have his mop returned to him IMHO. Maser (Talk!) 09:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Hopeless support, but strong support nonetheless. Great admin to work with, and does prodigious grunt work. Cool Hand Luke 09:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I didn't like the recall and I don't like the way people oppose an RfA based on personal conflicts rather than concrete evidence of proven misconduct. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Strongly, as well. He is immature - first, he deleted all his userspace and almost resigned when his arbcom bid failed, then he got recalled and stormed off the project. He is power-hungry, or over-eager for adminship, his request at WP:BN got turned down and he rushes here, with a once-sentence nomination and no mention of the questions as well. I think a lot of the community may be interested in hearing an answer to question #3, for example. And there are reasons that a recall started, and going back after 12 days, of which all were under a different account speaks greatly of immaturity and power-hunger/over-eagerness. Maxim(talk) 21:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    If I may, I've been a sysop before. There is no real power to hunger for. It is as they say, mopish. I've observed that if you are using the tools to wield power, the community will call you on it. As for the rest, I think we learn. Regards, Mercury 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree with Maxim's comments above, the storming off after the ArbCom elections, the silly edit summaries on your talk page, the sudden leaving, then coming straight here after WP:BN is not a good sign. Qst 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    What silly summaries? I had figured using BN, rather than searching out and selecting a crat would have been a good sign. Regards, Mercury 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Since I oppose the entire recall process, those admins who agree to submit themselves to that bureautcratic circle jerk farce don't deserve the tools, as they only add more drama than is needed to the entire adminship process. Corvus cornixtalk 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. I think it'd be best to have a couple months of stable contribution before coming back to adminship. I understand there was a rough run there, and I don't want to add to the pain, but I think more time is needed. I also think Mercury would really benefit from doing some encyclopedia building in the next couple of months. It helps center us as Wikipedians, helps calm us, helps keep our priorities straight; maybe that's what was missing before. --JayHenry (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Mercury has a history of not learning from his mistakes and reacts badly when he recieves adverse feedback - the result is often a rash action that clearly hasn't been thought through. Listening to the community and learning from experience is probably the most important quality in an admin and I simply don't think Mercury does this well enough. This RFA is a classic case in point. Mercury seeks his bit back @ BN - is denied and immediately creates this RFA and transcludes it without any voluntary commentary at all. This to me smacks of pique and doesn't sufficiently take account of the needs of the community to properly reassess his canditature for adminship. I'd like to support at a later date but I'd like to see some real evidence of lessons learned. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Not a fan of this user's erratic behavior or needless involvement in many controversies. I also tend to prefer admins who show a strong interest in encyclopedic content/dispute resolution as opposed to policing/wikipolitics.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I don't feel I can support after the issues brought up; the attitude that the user showed reflects on what he thinks of consensus, I think. Also, the same attitude suggests that the user thinks they know better than a group of editors, which shows a lack of respect and again disregard for consensus. Oh, and to be clear; I appreciate that sometimes you need time to cool off after something unfortunate has happened, but expressing your discontent in a blue streak of sulking isn't very mature. Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Considering the way he gave up the bit, I think it will take some time before he has the trust and support of the community in such measures to regain the mop, if ever. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I told him on my talk page, after we seemed to settle whatever trivial differences we had after Durova's situation, that I would support this were he to run it through normally. However, I have to oppose for now since he basically tried to bypass his agreed upon recall and went right to the Bureaucrats first. Sorry, Mercury. Lawrence Cohen 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose -For all the reasons people asked for Mercury's recall and were concerned for his mental health in the first place. Is he a glutton for punishment or something, after his RfC where he was comprehensively pwned, now he sets himself up for it again? Seriously you need an antenna to gauge people's likely response before you open something like this. Which most people have, at least to an extent. Or you need to have some care to protect your own feelings. Merkinsmum 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Respectfully, my feelings, or mental health are none of your concern. You should not make this personal. Regards, Mercury 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - I cannot trust this editor with the sysop bit right now, not since his behaviour after the ArbCom incidents. Not right now, but in a few months time, perhaps. Really sorry - Alison ❤ 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. oppose. i watched the recall business from afar and the way you handled yourself was not good. if we cannot trust you to keep such a simple promise without twisting your arm on that, why should we trust you now? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Many of the above concerns worry me. I think we should see a few months of editing before he gets the mop back. -Djsasso (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose While I do not hold Mercury's behavior that led up to the recall against him, his actions since then - such as storming off, using OTRS to delete his userspace, and trying to blindside the community by appealing to the bureaucrats for reinstatement of the bit among others - are very troubling. Additionally, the fortress mentality that I perceive in Mercury is the antithesis of what I seek in an administrator. east.718 at 23:22, December 28, 2007
  15. Oppose Due to above concerns. miranda 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, major concerns about this user. Everyking (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. I applaud you for going through this when you could have probably gotten your tools back by asking. (According to WP:FORMER, anyway, maybe I'm wrong and something changed regarding that) But yeah, your behvaior, even the little bit I saw, was unbefitting of any editor, let alone an admin. Wizardman 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    He asked at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, but Rdsmith4 decided he had a controversial resignation, and thus could not have it back only by asking. I (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, very well then. I would've thought it'd be controversial now but I figured I'd ask. Wizardman 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Yes, I supported last time, but I no longer trust Mercury's judgment. For example, during the initial phases of the recall, Mercury removed himself from the recall category, and this was noted by AnonEMouse. Mercury's explanation for this was that recall should not be used as a shortcut around dispute resolution. While I agree with this, I also think that's it's bad judgment to remove yourself from the category when someone has initiated a recall on you. In User:Mercury/RFC and User:Mercury/Recall, a large number of users (myself included) opposed the idea of you losing the tools, as shown here and here, yet ultimately, you still resigned your adminship. The entire recall incident, in my opinion, was a gargantuan waste of time and a major drama-fest, and sadly, attempting this RfA so soon after all that is not good judgment. I sincerely apologize, Mercury, but for now, I'm going to have to oppose. I hope to support in a few months time. Acalamari 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Reading the whole recall drama left a bad taste in my mouth -- not the initial incident which sparked it, but how Mercury handled the recall itself. Granted, I'm sure it was very stressful to go through, but coming back and asking for an RfA (without being open to recall this time) after only two weeks is of concern. --Fabrictramp (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose I participated in Mercury's recall/rfc, and vocally supported the removal of the tools. Once things settled down and the drama had quieted, I felt pretty uncomfortable with the whole process. I felt bad for Mercury, as having to face an unstructured referendum on your acceptability as an administrator so soon after taking a public drubbing in the ArbCom elections seemed excessive, and I'd like to apologize for any hurt feelings. Still, I cannot support. I'm still not sure what his purpose here is, or if he's learned anything. In the past, I have made my opinions about Mercury pretty well known, and you can see my comments at User:Mercury/RFC and User:Mercury/Recall if you'd like to. I am opposing because we should be here to write an encyclopedia first and foremost, though the behind the scenes aspects of Wikipedia do play an important role too. Still, Mercury appears to be desperate for power or advancement in the Wikipedia hierarchy. This is his fourth RfA in addition to the ArbCom run and he's left the project three times (though one of those was fairly brief), and I think the leaving is ultimately why I'm opposing . Mercury is a magnet for and creator of drama, often immature, and doesn't have the best judgment. If, as people say, adminship isn't a big deal, or, as Mercury above says, it is just "moppish" than surely he will be willing to stay with the project without the tools. Show people you care about the project, not the extra buttons. AniMate 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    As soon as I hit the "save" button, I thought of a much more concise way of saying everything I wrote above:
    Mercury will not abuse the tools, but I'm fairly certain he will misuse them. AniMate 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Write some articles. Remember the point of the project. I've read through your conduct in this whole sorry saga and, to be frank, I think you should give up on the idea of adminship for quite a long time. If you wonder why people don't trust you with the mop then here's a random example, at the top of this page you made no attempt to explain yourself then remarked that you are not much of a "wordsmith" yet at the very start of your very first RfA you wrote "I have always been good with english. In high school, I took the advanced english and lit classes. So the written word has always been my passion." I'm sure you came across the word "disingenuous" in your studies. Nick mallory (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - I don't think I've ever participated in an RfA before, and I rarely will again, but given this particular user's history, I can't see how he's earned anyone's trust. He's certainly proven his poor decision-making skills, and since decision-making is an admin's job, there's no way he deserves the buttons. -- Robster2001 (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. If I can't trust you to hold to a direct promise, and I can't trust you to even be honest that you broke such a promise, how can I trust you with adminship? -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Agree with Amarkov. Admin recall wasn't the best of systems beforehand...— Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    That oversight request wasn't a great idea either. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Sorry, but I think this is a bit too soon after leaving Wikipedia so suddenly. Captain panda 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. In addition: In my opinion, the existence of the DRV process should be no factor in an admin deciding an AfD case - in the comments, M appears to argue the opposite. With some exaggeration for emphasis, there should be no “let’s see if it sticks” when deciding an AfD case. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Could you qualify this? I'm scratching my head. Mercury 05:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    In brief: "I can be convinced otherwise, at DRV." and "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." Please correct me if necessary. -- Iterator12n Talk 06:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    If I'm not mistaken, that was in the context of DRV versus Recall, not "let us see if it sticks". Thanks, Mercury 15:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per all above. Ripberger (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per AniMate (whose assessment was spot-on, absolutely correct) and East (who was pretty much correct as well). The ArbCom mess, that horrendous decision made on Angela's AfD... I'm sorry, but I think you've opened up a can of worms here. You should have taken a wikibreak after that AfD closure instead of setting up the recall, collected yourself, maybe took a back-seat and just simply not used the tools for a while, observing exemplary admins like Lar or Anonymous Dissident, then using them again, if you wanted to retain the tools after that. Because of recent events, however, I think the community will not accept you as an admin for a long time to come. DEVS EX MACINA pray 07:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. I object and statically agree with all that has been noted in this section. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. I expected to support, since I don't think one poor AfD closure merited a desysopping, and I stated on the RfC that no desysop was needed. However, I was disappointed on the RfC with the fact that he initially indicated that he would not honour his recall commitment, and only did so under overwhelming pressure from the community. I am also very disappointed to hear that he attempted to request his admin bit back without going through an RfA. I am accordingly very concerned that he does not fully appreciate the fact that administrators must be accountable to the community. Administrators are ultimately servants of Wikipedia. If the ordinary editors lose confidence in an administrator, that administrator cannot continue in office. I myself resigned in uncontroversial circumstances, but chose to go through a full reconfirmation RfA, in which several editors were able to voice concerns. Mercury should have followed this example. I'm not expressing any opinion on whether he was a good admin, or on his maturity or general character; I just think that a contempt for the views of the community is a very poor characteristic in anyone holding a position of trust. WaltonOne 11:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Mainly per the affinity for drama as displayed by the deletion of his userpage as a reaction to the ArbCom election situation. And also per Walton. If the ordinary editors lose confidence in an administrator, that administrator cannot continue in office is a principle that should be set in stone. The concept of "Admin for life" does nothing but actually shorten the life expectancy of Wikipedia as a project to be taken seriously. However, in this vein, kudos to Mercury for his initial self-inclusion in AOR. And although the initial reason for the initiation of the recall was ludicrous, that's not a reason to overlook other, really considerable misjudgements on his part. I dorftrottel I talk I 13:29, December 29, 2007
  33. Oppose - Lacking argumentation and discussion skills made themselves apparent when I recently came across some of the candidate's admin work. User:Krator (t c) 13:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Why proudly tell people during your RfA that you will be available for recall and then remove yourself from this category when someone actually attempted to recall you? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Because the recall reasons made no sense. Mercury 15:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Oppose - feel I cannot trust candidate per above concerns. EJF (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Oppose - whether or not making yourself available for recall is a generally good idea, if you indicated that you were willing to be subject to recall, then you should stand by it when you actually are subjected to a recall process. I'm afraid that interfering with the recall, resigning your bit, and then trying to get your bit back with the recall closed is not the way to gain the trust of the community. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think there is a implication, that no one should be available to a senseless recall. Respectfully, Mercury 15:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
With (continuing) due respect, the issue to me is not whether the recall was sensible, senseless, or neither of the above. I myself am not overly enthusiastic about the recall process, though it is a concern only to those who voluntarily say they will subject themselves to it. I am directly concerned that, should you find meeting the responsibilites of adminship unpalatable at some point in the future, you will respond by trying to reason your way out of those responsibilities rather than meeting them head on. Hence, if I am averse to risking such a situation – as, in fact, I am – then I must not support you for adminship at this time. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
For now at least, I'm still thinking. While I opposed the recall, I think the early closing was in poor form. Mr.Z-man 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Changed to support. Mr.Z-man 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It was very poor form, and if this were a sport(it is not a sport), I would have garnered a yellow card. I'm embarrassed by my behavior. Regards, Mercury 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Leaning Towards Support Oppose I'm thinking. The closure of Angela's AfD, and the evidence presented in the recall are enough to warrant substantial thought about outright support in your favour, but there's little evidence of any significant abuse with the tools in the past. Perfect Proposal Happy Holidays! 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    After further review, Mercury's actions seem rather disturbing. The early closure seriously worries me, and gives me grave doubt about Mercury's readiness to regain the mop.Perfect Proposal Happy Holidays! 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Do you still feel the same away regarding little evidence of significant abuse with tools? Mercury 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    That would be the reason why I'm still at neutral.Perfect Proposal Happy Holidays! 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Firmly Neutral - I really don't know what to think here. Before recent events, Mercury was a solid admin, somewhat erratic, but had good judgment definitely within the normal range. However, the early closing of the recall and the comments located there trouble me. I wasn't following the Angela Beesley AfD, and therefore won't comment on the matter until I have time to look at all that happened there. Regards, Keilana(recall) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I like this editor, but oppose concerns trouble me. Good luck in the future anyway. Rt. 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: I'd really hate to oppose you, but am hesitant to support, for obvious reasons. I am very surprised to see you here (at RfA) so soon though (given that you've went through the recall process a short time ago). - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Regain the trust of everyone after a few months of editing. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keilana puts it nicely. I like Mercury, but can't bring myself to support this recall RfA at this time, but I certainly won't oppose it. Daniel 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I didn't want to pile on the opposes, so I haven't. But IMO Mercury has demonstrated too many errors of judgement recently to be considered a safe keeper of the mop. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. Mercury was a good admin overall, though he made some serious but forgivable mistakes in judgment in the recent controversy leading to his resignation. But the way he hastily requested resysopping twice in the span of two months over stress unfortunately concerns me that he doesn't stay cool well in the stressful situations that adminship entails. Sorry :( krimpet✽ 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    Dead neutral. I have seen your work as an administrator and think you did a lot of good for the community, but the concerns raised by the opposers appear to be valid. Maser (Talk!) 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. Maser (Talk!) 09:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Really poor timing, man :/ I suggest you withdraw, let everyone stand back and let their wounds heal, and try again in a few months. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per Riana, and per some erratic behaviour of late. I think it's best to be steady. There are many many users who have never changed names, never deleted their pages, never resigned their adminships and then asked for them back, stayed cool through controversy, in short, have been pretty solid about who they are and where they stood. Your comments about the recall process also show that perhaps you didn't really understand the ramifications of the committment, and the perception the community had that you were changing things as you went, while perhaps partly unfair, was caused at least in part by not having set things out clearly enough at the start. I'm working to encourage category members to change that, see Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin_criteria. I strongly suggest some time as an editor to rebuild your reputation, before asking again for reconfirmation. I almost opposed over these points but in the end didn't see the sense of piling on, I don't see this as successful... a neutral gives me the chance to make these points just the same. Perhaps a withdrawal now would be a good idea? Mercury, I think you're a good person who means well and I enjoy interacting with you, but now is not the time. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.