I have added this RFA to Template:Cent because I would like as many views as possible - I think this is likely to turn into a referendum on the definition of a COI in the context of administrators so it should include more than just RFA regulars. -- Tango ( talk) 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I am baffled about your lack of understanding. Is it the language? Forget the word "COI". You blocked a user, that block led to your de-sysopping. You are now, and forever more, "involved" with that editor. You don't like it; we get that. Your dislike of it doesn't change the fact that any admin actions you take against that one editor are "tainted" in the eyes of some people. A simple statement - "I accept that the community will bicker if I take any action against MONGO, and thus I agree not to do so. (But I reserve the right to take part in any discussion about him, and I will be pointing out breaches of policy to other admins)" would have avoided many opposes. The fact that you *refuse* to see that is why you should never have the tools. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 07:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't really see what MONGO had to do with the desysopping, he just happened to be the person the block that triggered the case was of. I can understand that some people would hold a grudge against MONGO for that, but I don't because I don't think it had anything to do with him. I would accept that I am involved with the Arbs that desysopped me and perhaps the person that filed the case (I don't remember who that was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't MONGO), but not with MONGO. Also, I think the ArbCom case was flawed and would like this RFA to effectively overrule it, so it should be ignored in the future. -- Tango ( talk) 08:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hence "in the eyes of some people" -- clearly not yours, but some people. That's the reality of the situation, despite your lack of understanding it, or thinking they're wrong. Deal with the reality: The people who need to approve of you being an admin see a dispute, and you can't seem to convince them otherwise. You could continue sitting and arguing over the definition of a dispute, or you could just accept it and agree to behave in a way that makes everyone feel more comfortable (ie. recuse yourself from future admin action against MONGO). It might be too late for that now though, not sure. Equazcion ( talk) 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no way I can convince them otherwise until they actually tell me what dispute they see - so far, NotAnIP is pretty much the only person to specify. -- Tango ( talk) 11:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems that you're unlikely to pass this RfA if you're turning it from "I could use the tools, I won't do harm, a few people are worried about disruption caused if I block MONGO, so I'll not block him (but I will take part in any discussion of him) to ease their worries" into "Stick it to ARBOM for their shitty rulings". Some of the opposers would have changed if you'd made simple comment like "A few people think I am too involved to be able to block MONGO, and while I disagree I'll agree to not mae any actions against that user." But your behaviour (which is seen as willful stubborness) during this RfA may have fixed many people into oppose. And now this RfA will, I guarantee, be brought up if you decide to run again in future. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

So, the original thing was a block of toxic editor. But blocks for those people *never* ever work. They don't change that editor's behaviour. They don't stop drama, (if anything they create huge amounts of it, see this RfA). And, sadly, they get the blocking admin de-sysopped. This is a really important discussion for WP to have - "Does content contribution give passes for poor behaviour?" "Why can't some well known toxic personalities have their contributions added by proxy? This allows us to ban them, but use their good content" etc. I can tell you that RfA is *THE WORST* place for that discussion. Is this a shitty situation? Yes, really shitty. I really hope you don't become demoralised by it, and that you realise that many people like you and respect the work you do. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 14:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• It should be obvious to one and all that this RFA has already failed, regardless of the time remaining. I urge the candidate to show some judgement (like an admin would do) and acknowledge the fact that this is over. Please withdraw this nomination and put an end to this needless drama. Thanks for your consideration. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Alternatively, could someone perhaps close this RfA, per SNOW or if not possible, per IAR? It is an embarrassment and a waste of time to continue beating the dead horse. -- Pgallert ( talk) 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  The candidate has been told about early closing, several times. They know what might happen if it's left open. They know that early close is still available. They've said, more than once, that they'd like the RfA to stay open. They've also said that they'd like more editors to see this RfA. So,, really, there's no need for early close. This isn't a delicate newbie, it's an experienced aware user. Who knows, maybe some other editors will be able to change my opinion? Or maybe a cascade of editors that the candidate respects voicing their concerns will persuade the candidate that ARBCOM was right. There's no time being wasted here - you don't have to read or respond to anything here. People seem to be keeping mostly civil. And it's not even that dramatic - people are steering clear of the "what do admins do to the well known toxic personalities who have many good edits" question, which is wise. (And that's a question that needs to be sorted out because it could fuck every RfA until there's a reasonable consensus.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  Well, at this point he would need some 200+ "support" votes to turn the outcome. If this is not a snowball's chance in hell I don't know what is. Consensus has been reached, full stop. And it is not only about him: RfA participants have to page through all the opposes, even if it is only to get to the second nomination on the list. But I see that there is no consensus to close, and I will back off now. -- Pgallert ( talk) 08:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• If the candidate wants it to remain open, it should remain open. Their comments suggest that they think it could turn around... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• I very nearly closed it myself despite his remarks indicating he wants it to run, but decided to honor his request and simply added mine to the litany of opposes. I was trying to appeal to the candidate because this kind of stubbornness will likely prevent him from ever re-attaining the mop, but if he wants to see this through to the bitter end even though the outcome is painfully obvious then so be it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• He's extraordinarily arrogant, and pushing his own agenda through this RfA. End this abomination, please. Crotchety Old Man ( talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• This RfA hasn't endeared Tango to me but there's no need to call Tango "arrogant", his reasons for keeping the RfA open are his own. You may be crotchety and old, but you should still avoid personal attacks like that. -- Atama 頭 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Hey hey hey now, there's no call for saying Crotchety Old Man is crotchety and old. :) Equazcion ( talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

An admin who is desysopped for controversially blocking a controversial editor, in my mind, has the right to stand for a complete RfA and not have to deal with suggestions of SNOW closes. At best, he wins, at worst he loses and exposes the temerity of the current RfA regulars (and not-so-regulars or has been Wikipedia Review groupies). Hiberniantears ( talk) 02:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

He has the right to a full RfA. He would, probably, have got the mop if he had run his RfA differently. He chose to run on a "tell ARBCOM they were wrong" platform, and that seems to be what many people don't like. See also my point above about proper venues for discussion about methods for dealing with well known toxic editors. VP, AN, RfC, would all have been a million times better than RfA. And there are people who think the desysop was wrong, but who think that blocks are hopeless for dealing with toxic editors. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 09:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

This bothers me, in that it seems to me like a demonstration of Springeresque qualities in people, the want to see and participate in train wrecks. The actual purpose of this process has already been served, and yet we let it continue, and we're glad Tango wants it to. There's no point in continuing this other than the fact that it's sort of "fun" to pile on and confirm to each other how "right" we all are. It seems contrary to what Wikipedia is about. For the sake of our principles, the mere fact that Tango wants this abuse (or is too stubborn to agree to withdraw it), doesn't seem to me like a good enough reason to let it go on. Equazcion ( talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Meh. Previously I supported an early close to this appalling farce. Now I've changed my mind. Let Tango's hissy-fit supreme against the decision of the ArbCom reach it's ghastly conclusion. At the very least it has ensured that he will never again be granted a position of responsibility in the project. That can only be for the greater good. Crafty ( talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

When someone acts in ways that you object to, and brings misfortune onto himself, it is very tempting to revel in the schadenfreude. But I believe that anyone who begins an RfA in good faith deserves at least a modicum of respect. -- Atama 頭 06:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

When someone exposes himself to the judgement of the community he deserves all the criticism he receives. In that light your observations are snide and unwarranted. Crafty ( talk) 06:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Atama was just stating what he believes. You seem to believe something different, Crafty. Let's just leave it at that. Equazcion ( talk) 06:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't seem to believe it Equaz, I do actually believe it. And as entitled as Atama is to his opinion I am to mine. So you know, :P :) Crafty ( talk) 06:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Corrected. I didn't tell you to shut up. If anything, I told the both of you to shut up; but I didn't say that either. I just think this exchange has become drama for the sake of drama, and it would suit everyone to let it end. You may now have the last word. Equazcion ( talk) 06:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Apology accepted. :) Crafty ( talk) 07:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

a couple of comments in the above discussion are a bit bad tempered. It's weird that people accuse a candidate of creating drama while then going on to create drama. I recognise a few of my comments have been uncivil, and I apoloise for those. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 09:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I am equally prepared to rub ashes through my hair. Crafty ( talk) 09:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I found this RFA quite appalling, and was not pleased, and actually a bit saddened, by the strong words used all around. I would like to emphasize that Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and politely ask all parties involved to moderate themselves in the future, should they ever be tempted to let personal feelings cloud their judgement.

Shentino ( talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

You're kidding, right? *snort* Crafty ( talk) 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply