Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango 2

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

Tango

It has become clear that continuing this RFA will serve no purpose, so I am hereby withdrawing it. I would have done yesterday but I wanted to have a chance to make a few points as I did so. First of all, I would like to thank those that supported me and those who tried to explain their reasons for not supporting. I would now like to respond to a few of the common reasons for opposing:

Some people express concerns that this RFA was more about contesting the ArbCom result than anything else. They are correct. I can see two reasons for giving the mop back to a desysopped admin. Either something has changed since they were desysopped and they are now suitable to be an admin when they weren't before or the original desysopping was in error. I do not believe that anything has changed, so this RFA was essentially an appeal of the ArbCom result.

Others expressed concerns about how I deal with criticism. I tend to argue with people that critise me. I consider this the obvious thing to do. Arguing is not a bad thing. Arguing is how good decisions get made. You start with two people with differing opinions, they engage in a point-counterpoint and, hopefully, reach an agreement. That agreement is likely to be a better decision than deciding which person is right based on who has more support or is more compliant with community norms. As for why I usually disagree with criticism - that should be obvious. If I agreed with it, I would never had done whatever is being criticised. The only time I would immediately agree with criticism is if it is something I had never considered before, but that is not that case with any points brought up here. If I explain why I disagree then that gives the criticiser an opportunity to counter my reasons and perhaps convince me. Unfortunately, most people seem to just jump on the fact that I haven't immediately agreed with them and don't even try and convince me with reasoned arguments. I tried to be very clear about why I disagreed with people, it should have been easy for them to counter those reasons if they were right, but they didn't try. That is a wasted opportunity.

Lastly, some people said that they acknowledged that I didn't really have any conflict of interest or involvement and probably could make good decisions, but that there would be a perception otherwise and therefore giving me the mop (without restricting how I could use it) wouldn't be worth the drama. I can respect and understand that reasoning, but I disagree with it. When I first became an admin about 3 years ago there were very frequent complaints that admins were untouchable. Whenever there was a dispute between an admin and a non-admin other admins would almost always assume the admin was in the right. This was obviously a problem. However, it seems to be that was have gone too far and now have the opposite problem. We are too afraid of drama and of not being nice and friendly that we are now overly critical of admins to the extent that they can't do their job. We now have problems both recruiting and retaining admins. So far, reducing active admin numbers hasn't caused serious problems with the project, but I think it is inevitable that it will do soon if we don't do anything. I think one of the things we can do is to have no reasonable expectations of admins. Admins exist to improve the project - that is, to help make the encyclopaedia better. We select admins because of their experience and good judgement - let them use that experience and judgement to work out what is best. Applying policy by the letter is a job for an advanced bot, we have people doing the job because they can make judgement calls - so let them!

Thank you for reading my final remarks - can somebody that is familiar with the process please close this RFA. I'll see you all around, I'm sure. --Tango (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final tally: 15/74/11. Closed early due to withdraw request by Tango. Equazcion (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Tango (talk · contribs) – Relevant links:

Previous (successful) RFA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango (19th November 2006)
ArbCom case where I was desysopped: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango (16th May 2008)

I was made an admin back in 2006 and was desysopped about 18 months later. If you want to know the details of that case, please see the link above. All I wish to say on the subject at this time is the following: I stand by my block of MONGO but acknowledge that the community felt it was too long. I disagree with the community on that point, but accept and respect that I am outnumbered and will endeavour to comply with community norms on block lengths. Some ancient history was also dragged up during that case, and I will not comment on that other than to say that some of those actions I stand by and some of them were mistakes that I have learnt from. I believe that the desysopping was an error due to significant community support of my actions, that the "DefendEachOther" policy quoted as a principle in the case does not exist on this project (perhaps it should - that can be discussed elsewhere - but the fact remains that it doesn't) and that my block was no so much because of the incivility towards me but rather the clear intention to disregard my warning. I attempted to appeal the decision based on the second point and was not successful, so I have decided to come directly to the community.

You may be interested to hear a little about what I have been doing since that case. Immediately after the case I was somewhat demoralised, as you might expect, and my activity dropped. A short time later I discovered the Wikipedia:Reference desks and have devoted a significant amount of time to answering questions there. It is a very satisfying and educational use of my time and I intend to continue my work there. I have also been very active with Wikimedia UK, the UK chapter of the WMF. I was closely involved with it being reformed (and campaigned for the previous incarnation to either get new leadership or disband) and have been involved with a variety of aspects ever since. I have stood unsuccessfully for the WMUK board in the two elections there have currently been (I suspect I was not elected due to my tendency to dispense with tact and diplomacy when it is getting in the way of doing what needs to be done). That has not prevented my involvement and I was recently appointed as Head of Fundraising to take charge of WMUK's part in the upcoming fundraising drive. I intend to continue with these activities as well. As you can probably tell, this means I will not be one of the most active admins (I never was), but I think I could do a significant amount of useful work - probably in CSD and AIV, where I was active during my previous term with the mop. I realised a few months ago that I had drifted away from the whole "writing an encyclopaedia" thing, so decided to dip my toes in that area again - I wrote St. George's church, Trotton, got it accepted at DYK (my first) and have submitted it to GAN (where it is stuck in a backlog).

Earlier this year I was blocked due to a misunderstanding (I share some responsibility for that) and was unblocked by the blocking admin. I believe that matter to be completely closed and not worthy of further discussion.

I am not answering the standard questions, since I think I have covered all the pertinent points in this nomination statement and the questions aren't really applicable to a former admin. I also don't intend to answer any generic questions that people ask on every RFA since they probably aren't applicable either. I will try to answer specific questions that are clearly relevant to me (please explain why you think they are relevant), but I reserve the right not to get bogged down in debates over my previous actions - that's likely to just lead to drama. Also, before anyone asks - I will not be open to recall, I don't think the system works and I know beyond any doubt that ArbCom is capable of desysopping me, so I'll leave that task with them.

One final point, which is probably going to get my quite a few oppose !votes: I consider my only involvement with MONGO to be of a purely administrative nature and do not recuse myself from further administrative actions involving him. I acknowledge that any such actions are likely to lead to significant drama and will take that into account when deciding what action, if any, is appropriate. I have no intention to follow him around waiting from him to trip up, so hopefully this will never be relevant, but if you are not happy with me using the tools against MONGO, please oppose this RFA.

Thank you for reading all of this, I know it is rather longer than a typical nomination statement. I look forward to reading your comments and stand ready to answer your questions. --Tango (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Additional optional questions from Bwrs

4. For those of us who don't have time to wade through pages of arbcom drama, can you please summarize the substance of your dispute with User:MONGO in a couple of paragraphs?

A: I really don't have one... I think he habitually violates policy, particularly with regards to civility, and once opposed his RFA on those grounds. Shortly before I was desysopped I came across a complaint on AN/I about MONGO's incivility and issued a warning in accordance with the civility patrol or whatever it was called that ArbCom had put him under. He responded to that warning with incivility towards me in a way that made it clear he didn't intend to heed the warning, so I blocked him. To the best of my knowledge, that is the extent of my involvement with MONGO. If there is something I've forgotten, I would genuinely like somebody to provide the diffs. --Tango (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. I see you mentioned you appealed to Arbcom to reinstate you. Would you care to provide details regarding their answer?

A: They felt that the principle of DefendEachOther was an acceptable principle despite not being an explicit part of any policy and that the desysopping was based on more than just that principle. --Tango (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky Caldron

6. Can you set out what your approach will be to Recall?

A: I answered that in my statement - I would not be open to recall. ArbCom have already shown themselves capable of desysopping me, that is better than the mess that is recall.

Question from TParis00ap

7. Do you agree with the idea behind DefendEachOther or do you feel you have a fundamental right to self defense?

A:

8. Do you consider admin tools as available options to self defense?

A:

9. If the situation happened again, would you follow another course of events?

A:

General comments

Links for Tango:
Edit summary usage for Tango can be found here.

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

Discussion

Perhaps somebody could explain which policy includes this "An admin may only block a particular user once" rule, because I can't find it... --Tango (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not what's driving opposition. Take a look at the evidence page for the RFAR, particularly DHeyward's section, which pretty much demolishes your assertion that your only interaction with MONGO was administrative in nature. you actively campaigned against him, and your refusal to recuse yourself from any dealings with him indicates a stunning lack of common sense. Horologium (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now admins aren't allowed to block anyone that they opposed the RFA of? Ok, which policy does that fall under? --Tango (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not getting it. ~~It's not simply that you opposed MONGO, it's that you led a mini-crusade against him at his second RFA,~~ you blocked him eight hours after he stopped editing, you created an entirely new type of editing restriction (with no expiration), you never acknowledged that your judgment might have been wrong. On this RFA you went out of your way to emphasize the essential rightness of your actions and stated that you would not recuse yourself in matters regarding MONGO. Horologium (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide diffs for this "mini-crusade"? I don't remember it. I remember discussing whether a particular person should be an admin during their RFA - I was under the impression that was the point of an RFA. Giving a expiration for the restriction would have been pointless - how was I supposed to know when he would start behaving? The restriction should have ended when he started behaving himself, whether that was after a day or after 10 years. --Tango (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you only commented once in the discussion, opposed, and conducted an exchange with a neutral editor. I have accordingly struck part of my previous comment. However, your comments there (opposing MONGO's resysop) apply pretty much here as well: I think people just don't consider someone making a complaint against an admin (which happens all the time to any admin doing anything even slightly controversial) as a "dispute", it only becomes a dispute when the admin starts to retaliate, with MONGO invariably does. --Tango (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC) (from the discussion section) and Take a look at the ArbCom case he was desysopped following, the evidence you request should all be there. It is now up to MONGO to provide evidence that he's changed. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (from the neutral section, responding to Avruch). The fact that you blocked MONGO for a mildly abrasive edit summary on his own talk page indicates a tendency to readily retaliate; you note that it is up to a desysopped editor to prove that he has changed, something which you yourself have stated has not occurred in your case. If you are trying to rail against the unfairness of your de-adminning, you should have gone to the ArbCom first; they could have reinstated you without going through RFA, if they felt you were unjustly sanctioned. However, it's not just about MONGO; it's about all of the other instances where you misused your tools, as laid out in the evidence section of the Arbitration case. Your block of MONGO just happened to be the final straw. And despite the lengthy ANI thread and the whole arbitration, you still refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong. Horologium (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pretty sure the very definition of "conflict of interest" is when there is evidence of the possibility of impropriety. Saying someone has a COI doesn't necessarily mean their actions were motivated by an ulterior motive. When we disallow people from creating articles describing themselves or their own companies due to a COI, we aren't actually accusing them of self-promotion. We're just saying dual conflicting interests exist, and there is the possibility that the wrong one will win out. The mere existence of that possibility is what a COI is. I think. So whether "actual" or "perceived", they're both still a COI. Equazcion (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (at least, I did before I edit conflicted with you adding that last sentence - it's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of possibility, as you said in your first sentence). A conflict of interest is where you have two interests that would lead you to take opposite actions. In this case one interest is that of being bound by an admin's duty to uphold the values and policy of the project. I am still waiting for someone to explain what the other interest is. --Tango (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other interest would be the possibility that you'd want to get back at mongo, either consciously or subconsciously. What might also be bothering people here is that you seem so unwilling to recuse yourself from situations involving him. In the grand scheme of things, you hopefully want to do good by the Wikipedia community by becoming an admin, but you're letting this one little thing hold you back. You seem unwilling to make that one concession, which doesn't help convince people that you're over your past experience with him. Equazcion (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get back at MONGO for what? My desysopping? He wasn't responsible for that - I hold ArbCom solely responsible for that mistake. I believe I can benefit the project better if I don't have my hands tied behind my back by nonsensical interpretations of rules that prevent admins for being able to take action against somebody more than once. The reason I made clear here that I wasn't recusing myself was to avoid future drama if I ever do have the need to take action against MONGO - I think it is better to get a consensus now while it is an abstract issue rather than after a block, or whatever, when tempers are high. That I mentioned it here should not be interpreted as me having any intention to ever take an action against MONGO, I just want to have that option should it be necessary. --Tango (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of opposition on this RfA, I would suggest to the candidate that you withdraw before the pile-on gets worse. It is apparent to me (and probably others) that this has no chance of passing, so I would take from it what you will, forget about MONGO, and go on with your Wiki-life. ArcAngel (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly started. Give it a chance to get going, things could change. I have forgotten about MONGO and got on with my life, I just wanted to make it clear where I stand on the issue now rather than have a big drama about it somewhere down the line when some new issue regarding MONGO comes up (as it often does). I could have kept quiet, got promoted and then ended up in a situation where I felt it was appropriate to block MONGO and we would have a big drama. I think it is far preferable to have that big drama now in the abstract. --Tango (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now, with only 23% support, it would take a MASSIVE amount of supports to push that percentage past the passing stage, and I don't see that happening. It would be one of the biggest comebacks in RfA history, but I don't think anyone has ever passed after being down so far. ArcAngel (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would need around 46 straight supports to get into the very bottom of the discretionary region. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFAs last 7 days, this one has been going for a few hours, there is plenty of time for things to change. You are assuming that none of the opposers will change their minds - I know it is an old fashioned POV, but I still see RFAs as a discussion where people attempt to reach a consensus by being open minded. --Tango (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - RfA's CAN last 7 days, it depends on the RfA. I personally think this one is a long shot to go the distance given the way it has started. ArcAngel (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is unusual for an RFA to be snowed against the wishes of the candidate. --Tango (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate has expressed clear desire for this RfA to stay open. They are aware of the consequences. It's their choice. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the candidate has now resorted to gratuitous personal attacks against oppose !voters, I would agree with ArcAngel. The sooner this trainwreck of an RfA is shut down the better for all concerned. Crafty (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only think of one comment of mine that could be viewed as a person attack and it wasn't gratuitous - I was being misrepresented in a completely unacceptable manner. --Tango (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! Do you really this this is the standard of communication that's acceptable in an admin? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific? Is there a particular thing I've said that you consider unacceptable? --Tango (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to anyone saying you have a COI wrt MONGO, especially oppose 16 below. You could have started a discussion on the talk page, and linked people there. This would have avoided the impression of badgering, and allowed a better discussion of perceived problems. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close this

I really think this should be closed. At 10/48/7, there's no point in allowing it to continue, other than to continue piling on top of Tango, which doesn't seem constructive. I think the point has been driven home rather poignantly, perhaps to death. I can't close this myself as I've been involved in the discussion, but someone should, per WP:SNOW; and per the main RfA page, any uninvolved editor in good standing can do that, and doesn't need to be a crat or even an admin. Equazcion (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved and willing to close this, even though the candidate has (above) maintained a clear desire for this RfA to remain open. This RfA has been going on for 2 days and there's no chance of this passing. (About ~~200~~300 straight supports are needed) Since the community has clearly expressed their opinion, I'll close this in a few hours unless anyone has any objection. ƒ(Δ)² 07:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I remember thinking that Tango's desysopping was not necessary: I am not aware of anything Tango has done since the ArbCom case to not support resysopping, and as such, I endorse his RfA. Acalamari 02:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have been desysopped for going against one of the "untouchables" who could engage in incivility at will because they had a clique behind them. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. Candidate's lone block was quickly unblocked. Candidate has multiple barnstars on his userpage. Now, I have actually NOT agreed with the candidate in every AfD in which we have both commented; however, the candidate's stances were reasonably presented and so that matters more to me now than whether or not we necessarily agree. Reasonable disagreement should be encouraged, after all as through it, we challenge each other and ourselves to be better editors who make better articles. And to a large extent here, while it seems clear where this discussion is headed, I do not want the candidate to walk away discouraged. This request is not an instance in which the candidate has no positives. I see a few and even if my and the others' supports are more moral in the end, then at least that is something. Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Issue was more than a year ago and it seems to be a lone incident. Tango seems to have done good work since and I think that after that particular instance it is unlikely he will make another mistake. After all, he was an admin for 18 months prior. He must have been doing something right. - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 03:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Obvious Support Mongo, at least at the time, was one of the most disruptive editors around. Mongo is/was exactly the kind of editor who drives off two good contributors for every one good edit he makes. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I appreciate Tango's work on the ref desks. The previous desysop looks to me to be an over reaction to an overreaction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Acalamari. Unnecessary desysop, and no problems since, so automatic support. Majorly talk 12:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your past admin mistakes were relatively minor. RMHED 13:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any good reason to oppose, despite the pile of opposes. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns since you really have a clean slate of late. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support Tango was desyssoped for good reason. Moreover, he hasn't yet acknowledged that completely. However, it is quite clear that he understands what sort of behavior was deemed unacceptable. Even if he disagrees with the community on whether such behavior should be acceptable, he isn't going to repeat that sort of behavior. His general work as an admin aside from a few minor anomalies we good. Thus, I'm willing to give him the chance to see what happens. I am confident that if we give him the tools that he will use them well. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Acalamari. BryanG (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As someone who was unfairly desysopped myself, I am extremely sympathetic to others who may be in the same boat. This RFA is already destined to fail, but I will give moral support.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 05:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for having the guts to both maintain the fundamental rightness of your actions, acknowledge that the community saw things differently, and still put yourself through this. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ridiculous desysop decision in the first place, would have probably been best to recuse yourself from further contact with that editor though. Black Kite 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (not that it will make a difference at this point) - From my own review of the evidence on the ArbCom case, it looks to be (another) poor arbcom decision on an "admin abuse" case. Mr.Z-man 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

"If you are not happy with me using the tools against MONGO, please oppose this RFA." Okie-dokie. HiDrNick! 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're an asset to the project, and I have quite a bit of respect for you as an editor, but unfortunately I must agree with the sentiments of the above comment. Your actions against MONGO led to a serious dispute, and as such you need to be able to recognize that you have a COI with that editor. That said, it's still very early in the discussion, so I will check back for any new developments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The unapologetic attitude towards actions that the community at the time felt were unnecessary makes me hesitant to support this RfA.--Giants 27(c|s) 02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously mean well, but you don't appear to recognize that future actions you would hypothetically take against MONGO would be bad news, considering that there is a history between you two. I cannot support re-granting you administratorship for that reason. @harej 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your description of your past mistakes does not convince me that anything has changed. Triplestop x3 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - you don't need to take any more action with MONGO, and you should recognize that you have a COI... Apologies, —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intended to response to opposes, but now two people have mentioned COIs. Could someone explain what interest I have that is in conflict with adminship? --Tango (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your COI with taking any administrative actions against MONGO. —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question. What is the interest that is in conflict? An interest is something that would lead me to act in a particular way. --Tango (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I should have phrased that better. I'm not saying that you would have a COI, I'm saying that there would be a perceived COI—justified or not—with any sort of action you take against him. Hopefully this clarifies my thoughts? —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is much clearer, thank you. As I said, I would take that into account when deciding whether it was appropriate to act. Perhaps my views would be clarified if I explained something I left out during all the previous public discussions (because I felt it would add to the drama for very little gain - hopefully things have calmed down enough now that I can say it): The main reason I blocked MONGO myself, rather than getting someone else to do it, was because I knew that if I went to AN/I and suggested he be blocked the same thing as happens every other time someone does that would happen - his friends would rally round and nothing would happen. I decided that something had to be done otherwise MONGO's incivility would continue and there was no low-drama solution, so I felt I had no choice but to go for the high-drama one (knowing perfectly well that there was a good chance I would lose the mop in the process - while I haven't really been looking for them, I have seen far fewer complaints about MONGO since, so I think it was worth it). If given back the mop I would make decisions based on the same reasoning - if there is a low-drama solution, I would take it, if there isn't and I think the drama is worth it, then I would take the high-drama solution. We can't allow drama to prevent us doing what is in the best interests of the project and having experienced editors continually violating policy is not in the best interests of the project. Hopefully that makes my reasons for no recusing myself from actions involving MONGO clearer. --Tango (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nothing has changed. Attempt to leave MONGO in your past. –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all you had to do to move on was to know not to use the tools against MONGO again. Yet you've admitted you can't even do that. I'm not comfortable with you acting against mongo, so... oppose. Wizardman 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per your statement I do not recuse myself from further administrative actions involving him. ArcAngel (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Had me willing to support right up until the last statement. You are not uninvolved enough to use the tools against MONGO. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since you still don't think there was a problem with your block of MONGO. Horologium (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per the above. Frankly, nothing really has changed since the arbcom cases. Sorry. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed anything had changed. I said I thought the ArbCom case (singular) was wrong. If you disagree, please oppose for that reason, not for something that we agree on. --Tango (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Some people should not be admins! - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why you feel Tango is among them? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to kick a person when he is down but here is the answer to your question:
(1) - Please read my User Page on ConstEdits.

(2) - When a problem Administrator has been been desysopped, I believe the Admin should wait at least 2 years before applying again! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had a bunch written, but there was an edit conflict (don't like to copy and paste). In short giving you admin tools would cause too much drama, and if you were to block mango again, it would look as though you blocked him because you want revenge, thus the WP:COI. Before your next RfA I would STRONGLY suggest that you rethink your "adminship views". Bah too many edit conflicts got another one =/ SparksBoy (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are opposing because of the likely perception of a COI, rather than an actual COI? At least that makes some sense. Could you elaborate on what you think is wrong with my "adminship views"? --Tango (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask if a situation were to come up where it might require a block you would block instead of getting an outside unbiased opinion through WP:AIV? SparksBoy (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A situation that might require a block of MONGO? I can't see MONGO getting involved with simple vandalism, which is what AIV is for. Do you mean WP:AN/I? I don't believe I am in any was biased against MONGO other than in the same way anyone else that doesn't like to see people getting away with violating policy would be. I might consider going to AN/I to get other opinions, but see my response to Ed above for why that wouldn't necessarily work - if I thought it would work in a particularly situation then I would probably try it, avoiding drama and still getting the right result is always a good thing if you can do it. --Tango (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hold it against the candidate that he doesn't get what the opposers are saying, because my sense is that the rules used to be different; community standards at RFA and elsewhere used to afford a lot more leeway to admins. But standards have changed, blocking someone you had a significant quarrel with isn't okay now. I don't mean to pile on, but the candidate hasn't gotten the message yet. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What significant quarrel? Diffs please... --Tango (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango? I understand that standards may have been different when you were an admin, but it's now considered a very serious matter to take action as an "involved administrator". Asserting in your nomination statement that you think it's acceptable to do so indicates that perhaps you aren't familiar with the current standards. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an ArbCom case about an administrative action, it is not a quarrel. It has been a serious matter for as long as I can remember, but I have no involvement with MONGO. Please provide diffs of this claimed involvement. --Tango (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why Tango was desysopped was not simply because of his bad block of MONGO. Yes, it was excessively lengthy, coupled with the fact that he'd already campaigned against MONGO, making him involved - even disregarding these facts, the block occured several hours after MONGO's mildly uncivil comment (which he made in frustration), which makes it punitive regardless of context. And there was a good deal of context in the case of Tango - he's made a number of very bad judgment calls using the tools (not a huge amount, but enough to be a concern). Yet if Tango believes that his block of MONGO was the reason he lossed adminship, he has missed the point. It was not solely because of that one very bad block, not even considering other very bad calls prior to that - it was because, when Tango opened his actions for review, he would respond to any negative comment with excessive defensiveness and try to justify his actions further, creating a great deal more frustration than what it should have been. That's why Tango was desysopped - he refuses to accept criticism when given. Tango's refusal to acknowledge his block of MONGO as a bad call was (and remains) a serious concern, and given the background of making very bad calls and not learning from them, the odds of him making yet another very bad call were high enough that it warranted revoking his tools to prevent it from happening again. If Tango were to have admitted in his nomination statement, "you know, I screwed up, I'll avoid using the tools like that again," and he'd demonstrated that he learned how to control his emotions when he's being criticized, then I'd support. But after reading his nomination statement (particularly openly stating that he will not recuse from administrative action against MONGO) and looking at the way he's responding to the opposes, I am convinced that Tango is unsuited for adminship. And I feel really bad about it, because I like Tango and I think he is a great editor, but not every editor is meant to be an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block was because he clearly intended to disregard my warning and continue being uncivil. If a warning is not sufficient to prevent further violations you have to do something more. I refuse to accept all criticism as valid, that is not the same as refusing to ever admit I'm wrong. If people were able to provide valid arguments to support their claims that I acted incorrectly, they might persuade me, but that rarely happens - what usually happens is I counter a point they've made and they then just repeat themselves rather than countering my point, which is how reasoned debate works. The block of MONGO was supported by a large proportion of those that commented on it, so I don't think it can be described as a "bad call". It was clearly a controversial call, but that is not the same thing. What should I recuse from taking action against MONGO? I have no non-administrative involvement with him. If you disagree with that, provide the diffs. --Tango (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tango, it's simple common sense that were you to be resysopped and then take any admin action against MONGO (necessary or not), it would be seen as a conflict of interest because other involvement in matters related to him factored into a desysop. You've had too much history with him for any admin action you take against him to be taken as anything but a conflict of interest, even if your intentions are noble (and I'm sure they are). I'm not saying you're response to criticism is always bad, but there were times (including but not limited to the MONGO affair) where you'd be very defensive about your actions, which frustrated others who had tried to make a point to you. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you are unclear on what "conflict of interest" means. What is the interest that is conflicting? Are you suggesting that I want revenge against MONGO for me being desysopped? If so, I can assure you that is not the case. ArbCom screwed up there, not MONGO. Of course I defend my actions, if I didn't think they were right I wouldn't have made them. I get very frustrated when people don't respond to my points and just keep repeating their own. I have asked repeatedly for people to explain what interest is in conflict with being an admin and to provide diffs of my supposed involvement with MONGO (involvement in an administrative capacity does not count, I'm pretty sure there is a consensus for that). If people would respond that that request, they might convince me and I would withdraw with RFA, but they aren't even trying. --Tango (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were I to see you take any action against MONGO I would not personally think it was out of vindictiveness, because I have no reason to think you're necessarily letting your personal feelings cloud your judgment - it's more to do with the perception that such an action may give others. Even if you don't have a COI, it can be perceived as though it were and a block or anything against MONGO would be improper, no matter what he's said or done - it's better for somebody else to do the block. And I'm not sure what you mean by "involvement in an administrative capacity does not count, I'm pretty sure there is a consensus for that," when I'm pretty sure there is a solid consensus to the contrary. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want to lose an admin just because a few people aren't capable of understanding that not everyone holds irrational grudges? If it against policy to take administrative action against somebody you have a significant previous involvement with, but if that involvement was purely administrative it doesn't count. For example, if you block someone for 3RR you can block them again for 3RR a few days later without counting as an involved admin. If, however, you weren't the blocking admin in the first case but rather the person they were reverting, it would not be acceptable, because you're involvement was not administrative. I'm fairly sure that is the consensus interpretation of "involved". --Tango (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many judgement issues. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be specific? --Tango (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inability to recuse when there is a clear conflict, and the fact you were desysopped. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What conflict? I really cannot see what conflict everyone is talking about. Please spell it out to me. --Tango (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Your combative attitude here, badgering incessantly and refusing to acknowledge ANY wrongdoing is exactly why you shouldn't be promoted. It is one thing to ask for a clarification, but you've asked nearly every oppose. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've asked nearly every oppose - they are all opposing for the same reason and none of them have explained it. --Tango (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after reviewing the ArbCom case it's clear to me that this editor must never be given access to the tools again. Entirely unsuited to the role of Administrator. Crafty (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a reason. --Tango (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have. Crafty (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've said you read the ArbCom case, that isn't a reason. Presumably there was something in the ArbCom case that caused you to come to this conclusion, please say what. --Tango (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have given what I feel to be a sufficient justification for my oppose !vote. I have no intention of getting into an extended exchange with you about this, except to say that the belligerence you are displaying toward those who are in opposition to this RfA has merely solidified my position. Crafty (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To spell it out for you, he stated that you (minor paraphrase here) are entirely unsuited to be an admin. ArcAngel (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question was "why?". --Tango (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Was unanimously desysopped (nine to zero), and seemed to acknowledge ("please oppose this RFA") that he doesn't meet and doesn't respect the standards he's going to be held to. Sluggo | Talk 05:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Changing to Strong Oppose per below. User's refusal to read, coupled with a pretty blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, coupled with a tried-and-not-true accusation of bad faith on my part (and, apparently, on the part of the several dozen other opposers) suggests a scorched earth approach. Sluggo | Talk 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on... surely you can do better than a blatantly misrepresentative selective quote? --Tango (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can explain to me how I'm off base, go for it. Otherwise, yeah, per Craftyminion's "belligerence" comment, you're not reacting to criticism very well. Sluggo | Talk 06:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted me as asking people to oppose this RFA despite that very clearly being in a conditional clause - misrepresenting what people say is either malicious or stupid, which is it in your case? --Tango (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol. "Conditional clause" as in, "Vote for me on the condition that you accept my claims that I did nothing wrong and all the arbitrators who gave me the boot are idiots." Not that this matters any more. Sluggo | Talk 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on his responses here. Everyone seems to be banging their heads against the wall with Tango. It looks to me like Master&Expert was pretty accurate in that Tango doesn't seem to accept criticism well. Here there are 20 people so far, all basically telling him the same thing, and I've yet to see any effort at a re-evaluation. He even still asks "what conflict?", no matter how many times that question has already been answered here. Equazcion (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I'm being really stupid here - take pity on me and explain in simple terms what this conflict you are all talking about is. If somebody would actually explain if I might agree with you, but so far they haven't, at least not in any way I can understand. You can't expect me to just agree with you because you say so, you have to actually convince me with reasoned arguments. I don't care how many people have asserted it, until someone actually gives a convincing argument I'm not going to believe it. --Tango (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you really are that stupid (I don't think you are, just stubborn) then you shouldn't be an admin anyway, so there's no point in explaining it yet again. Sorry. Equazcion (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is so that I can understand, realise that I shouldn't be an admin, withdraw this RFA and then we can all go and get on with something more useful. Alternatively, it may allow me to realise where this misunderstanding is coming from, so I can clear it up and you can change your !vote. Either way, that seems like a good thing. --Tango (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to support originally, but the above concerns are, well, concerning. I feel your responses here have been unduly aggressive and they do little to reassure me that you'll be calm using the tools in future. You do good work here, so I'm sorry to have to sit this side of the bench. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 07:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say frustrated, rather than aggressive. Do you really expect me not to defend myself against criticism? Just because I argue my case doesn't mean I'm not listening to criticism - in fact, if I weren't listening I wouldn't be repeatedly asking for people to clarify their points. --Tango (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused... you are repeatedly asking people to clarify their points...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's my fault - I meant "wouldn't" but can't type. Fixed now. --Tango (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the astounding number of opposers as you have, it comes across as badgering and argumentative, rather than frustration. As was mentioned in the discussion section, if you want to address a point that is made multiple times, it might be easier to do so on the talk page or in the discussion section. That way, you won't clog up your RfA or get accused of badgering. For what it's worth, I do understand the frustration—I've been there myself—and it's hard not to respond to opposers, but it does get you further if you let others do the supporting of your case. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mostly per nom. Also lack of judgement, unwillingness to reconsider own point of view, and quite a bit of cluelessness about what not to do in an RfA. And no, I will not explain my point further. If it is not clear by now, it will never be. --Pgallert (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I came here to neutral because of past behaviour. But comments made by the candidate during this RfA clearly demonstrate lack of suitability for adminship. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not appear to have taken on board any of the criticisms which led to his desysopping. Badgering oppose votes with "please explain", as if he doesn't understand it, does little to enhance confidence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't understand. People keep talking as if I've had a long running dispute with MONGO when to the best of my knowledge I haven't. All I've done is oppose his RFA and block him for incivility. I would genuinely like somebody to explain what the hell people are talking about. --Tango (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could just accept that people perceive a dispute and act accordingly, despite your supposed lack of understanding. Equazcion (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - have to say no here, you don't see anything wrong with blocking MONGO again, not a good position to hold. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You really haven't made a single effort to convince the community why you should be resysopped. This RfA seems more like an attempt to settle an old score with ArbCom. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Brianherman (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tango's arguments above convince me that he/she's absolutely not ready to be resysopped. Sorry. ceranthor 12:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "I stand by my block of MONGO" ... "if you are not happy with me using the tools against MONGO, please oppose this RFA." (my emphasis) I feel I must oppose based on those statements alone. Your block of MONGO was wrong and that is why you are no longer an administrator. Blocking someone for making an uncivil remark towards you hours after the event shows pretty poor judgement (regardless of the length of the block). In any event, you were not a neutral administrator to be sanctioning MONGO ([1]). Finally, anyone who thinks they are likely to use admin tools "against" someone is showing a mindset that I find incompatible with being a sysop on this project. WJBscribe (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With apologies to Tango, who has done a lot of good work on the English Wikipeida - I can't support at this time. If the rationales of those who Oppose a candidate aren't sound, or are based on wrong or misleading diffs, or what have you, then someone will point that out - usually one of the supporters, a co-nom, or whomever. It is unseemly for the candidate to question so many of the Opposing editors. There are broader issues here, as noted - but this didn't earn any style points for the candidate, either. On MONGO, I have absolutely no problem with someone taking administrative actions in good faith and having them reversed. We, all of us, have made errors in judgement, and I don't doubt that Tango was attempting to act in the best interests of the project when he blocked MONGO. Great. The issue is that, once told by the community (and the Arbcom) that his actions were unacceptable, and unacceptable specifically because of his prior involvement with MONGO, his response (here and elsewhere) is essentially "Nuh-uh". Admins screw up; it's how we deal with the screw-ups, ours and others, that show what sorts of admins we are (or will be). Sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Absolutely not, based on the concerns of nearly everybody above me. iMatthew ^talk at 12:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tango's comments tell me that he hasn't acknowledged that his actions were wrong, which the ArbCom voted unanimously that they were.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I can't believe you said you'd use the tools on MONGO again. Also, WJBscribe sums up issues well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While most of the period while you were an administrator was (as far as I can tell, not being one myself) full of good judgements, the issue with MONGO does it for me too. The issue here is that there are 846 here on the English Wikipedia; with the number of opposes here about this issue it may be more sensible to have no contact using administrative actions on MONGO, but report it to another active administrator if you feel there is an issue: after all the harm caused by one editor cannot be that great in the time it would take, and will get around an unnecessary block which will cause a much higher drama than is necessary. I believe you when you say you will acknowledge that any such actions are likely to lead to significant drama and will take that into account when deciding what action, if any, is appropriate however I fail to see a situation arise when it would be appropriate, given the activity levels of administrators here. I hope this answers your question? -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not because what you did originally was so onerous; we can move on and forget with good work. I'm opposing because of your stunning lack of understanding of what you did wrong and that you contributed to the exacerbation of the problem. Also the stunning lack of understanding that your use of administrative tools in relation to MONGO again would not only be a horrible idea, but simply unnecessary. Just ask another admin to do whatever is needed, or more likely let it go since someone else is likely to notice anything that needs to be addressed. I would never ask you to recuse forever, but I would expect you to understand that doing so would be a good idea. Your statement on the matter reflects an immaturity that goes much farther than the issue of recusing in that case. That's not a major problem (everybody has things to work on) except when you want to be trusted with the extra tools. I'm glad you were honest, but I believe the project would be better suited if you contributed to articles instead. - Taxman ^Talk 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would have liked to see an agreement not to interact with Mongo in any capacity. Sorry. — CharlotteWebb 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose - The self-nomination started out defiant to begin with. Not a good way to start. But then badgering and attacking people in the RfA itself. Usually it's necessary to provide diffs in an RfA to show bad behavior, but this time a person doesn't have to look very far to see conduct unbecoming of an admin. -- Atama頭 16:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with at least 10 of the cmts above. I'm sorry. America69 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tango has demonstrated a fundamental unsuitability to being an administrator, rather than the occasional errors in judgement we see in some other administrators who have been desysopped and are reapplying here, given such unsuitability to being an administrator I cannot support this request nor envisage being able to support a future request. Nick (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposetextbook case of not listening to differing views. Was waaayyyy too block happy when they had the bit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose. When I saw this transcluded, I started reading through your background and contributions, and in and of themselves, although I wasn't entirely comfortable, I was prepared to good faith support a restoration of the tools. In the time it had taken to do all that reading, however, the whole discussion above had been going on - and your attitude towards oppose ~~voters~~ contributors has been apalling, exceptionally defensive bordering on rude and aggressive. I wasn't around at the time of your MONGO issues, and haven't read every line and diff slowly so I wouldn't presume to judge whether you were in the right or wrong - but there are a lot of people above this who do hold an opinion, and rather than letting them have it and merely disagreeing, or even starting a calm discussion, say on the talk page, you are arguing with them and badgering them. That does not fill me with confidence as to how you would interact with other users as an admin. --Saalstin (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Inappropriate responses here to "oppose" !votes raise substantial doubts about the candidate's suitability for admin status. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, somewhat strongly. Your attitude toward the MONGO incident is troublesome. I don't mind if a former admin seeks the tools again after learning from mistakes, but no, I'm afraid this is a different situation. You don't seem to realize that it was bad judgement in the first place; the block was wrong, and you're openly stating that you still stand by it. WJBScribe sums it up well. JamieS93 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still holding grudges? Bodes ill. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you still don't think you did anything wrong when you blocked MONGO after over a year and a half, I have no confidence that something like it will not happen again. Also, the persistant badgering of the opposes seems aggressive and downright rude. Sorry, Little Mountain 5 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could move past the obvious error you made in blocking MONGO as you did. But I cannot get past the fact, made clear by your multiple comments here, that you cannot understand what you did wrong, nor that your interaction with him is seen as a conflict. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry you clearly don't understand consensus - specifically that when a whole bunch of people have said "this is what we do, and this is what we don't" you feel you know still know better than the community that said it. Crowds may well be both wrong and right, but your deaf ear to them and combative status in this RFA is not where we want to be. Pedro : Chat 21:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Tango said "I can't understand why everyone perceives a conflict but I will bow to consensus and recuse myself" it would show a somewhat concerning lack of social perception for an admin: this situation is clearly different from blocking the same person for 3RR twice (see exchange with Master&Expert above). But sticking to a position which is so obviously against consensus - whether you understand why or not - is deeply worrying. I also agree with WJBScribe about use of the word 'against', although that could well have been an unfortunate slip and wouldn't be worth an oppose on its own. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per candidate's advice in nom statement. Tan | 39 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's quite a long time since the incident took place, but standing by your block of MONGO is not admin-like conduct. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Changed from support to oppose. After rereading his introductory remarks I'm not confident we will not have similar problems as before. Even if he were willing to say that he would just stay out of any admin issues with Mongo and wouldn't act similarly in any future situation I'd be willing to support, but without that sort of guarantee this is just waiting for a serious blow up with accompanying drama. And we have enough of that. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per nom statement and user's advice. JPG-GR (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're called weapons once you start using them against people. Per Tango's own guidance I oppose. --JayHenry (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would really rather have just closed this up as it is getting absurd, but the candidate has repeatedly stated they don't want that, so here I am. An administrator is supposed to take their cues from consensus, not their own stubborn determination that they must be right. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination reeking of arrogance --Step hen 03:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per "I believe that matter to be completely closed and not worthy of further discussion."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due largely to the users responses in this section. Setting the MONGO thing aside, the comments above don't reflect behavior I would want to see in an admin. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All previous issues aside, a person who admits to "my tendency to dispense with tact and diplomacy when it is getting in the way of doing what needs to be done" is unsuited for adminship. Sandstein 06:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the MONGO situation. If you can't see that any action by you against MONGO in an administrative capacity would be wrong (regardless of MONGO's actions) then I don't see that you are ready to have the tools back yet. If you were resysopped and found any of MONGO's editing problematical the correct way to deal with it would be to post via AIV or ANI and let other admins assess and act on the situation. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the way the candidate is responding to opposes is making me uneasy. I don't think this is a suitable attitude to have in adminship. --Taelus (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have liked to support but the candidate shows an excessive lack of understanding, why they were desysoped in the first place as well as a stubbornness to learn from previous mistakes. I am a firm believer that people can change (it's my core dogma when I approach such RFAs) but here we have an example where the candidate is unwilling to rethink their approach. Tango, please, listen to what people try tell you here... Regards So Why 08:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose their responses here tells me everything I need to know. No thanks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose on the basis of the answer to Q6 - aside from all the practical concerns raised - a candidate with your background unable to provide a commitment to recall without waiting for ArbCom cannot be supported. Leaky Caldron 11:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not on the basis of "MONGO-gate"; I'm largely uninterested in the WP:DRAMA surrounding it. I had heard of neither Tango nor MONGO before this RfA, and my oppose has nothing to do with any block of MONGO or with Tango's de-sysopping. I have reviewed exactly zero of that past beyond what's on this page. I have read only this page, and the opening statement from Tango was sufficient to determine lack of suitable temperament for adminship, based on comments from the candidate, including: "...questions aren't really applicable..." (of course they are), "I also don't intend to answer any generic questions..." (how are we to get answers other than from the candidate?), and "...please explain why you think they are relevant..." (this is a discussion, and unless a question violates policy, there's no reason a user should be required in advance to justify asking it). Wikipedia is a community, and for better or for worse, it runs the way the community decides it should run, and these statements don't square with that. If there is a desire to change how things run, this is not the place for it, and granting the bit to an editor who believes this is the right approach would not benefit the project. As for the quotes I've listed above, I understand they are selected from larger sentences (hence the use of ellipsis dots), and there is no context issue; I've quoted words directly from the candidate that ring alarm bells for me. Frank | talk 11:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per badgering and combative attitude. This oppose has nothing to do with past admin actions or actions since then, but the attitude demonstrated in this RFA shows this person should not be an admin. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to bother opposing due to the overwhelming numbers but since Tango wants this to continue I will make a comment. My impression of Tango has been as a user who has trouble accepting feedback and opinions when those opinions conflict with his own and his responses on this page are pretty consistent with what I have noticed in the past. There was an incident at IncidentArchive163#Goa_Inquisition where Tango expressed some very similar opinions and attitudes to what he has said here on the issue of acting when "involved". Various people tried to tell him that revert warring with admin rollback and then protecting the article on his preferred version and threatening to block users he'd just been edit warring against is really not appropriate. As Dmcdevit said at the time: "This isn't something we can agree to disagree about; this is about sound administrative judgment, which, as long as you defend any of those actions, I must conclude that you lack" and "I am absolutely flabbergasted that you seem to see no difference between "threatening to block people for incivility" and threatening to block people you just reverted for incivility. That is not simply enforcement of policy; that is out of bounds." Sure, this was a long time ago but Tango's comments about blocking MONGO etc certainly give the impression that even after all the endless discussions, with two years of experience, the arbitration case etc, he still fails to "get it", that his approach to adminship still hasn't changed one little bit and that he is still out-of-whack with where community attitudes and standards have been for a very long time. I understand RFA can be very stressful and upsetting but I feel his responses on this RFA show that he's simply not suited to adminship and I think it would be a very bad idea (for Tango as well as the community) to return the admin tools to this user. Sarah 13:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per HiDrNick, JayHenry, and Sarah. AdjustShift (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just wanted to get this in before the WP:SNOW started falling. Aggressive oppose-badgering is very, very annoying and childish. Definitely not admin material. Looks like the de-sysopping was a great call. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since this is looking more like a referendum on how long a particular ArbCom decision should hold than an RfA, I'll add my name to the list of people who think it should still apply. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire statement is dedicated to the arbitration case, and nothing about what you intend to work on again. (A week in real life is like a year on Wikipedia, a lot of developments and changes happen) Why did you even come to RfA? You should have instead used this statement to appeal directly to the ArbCom for reinstatement. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The ArbCom issue was a while ago, but you don't seem to have learned from the incident. Also per Mailer diablo's statement regarding your future work as an admin. Netalarmtalk 01:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After reading the Arbcom case, I did think that the punishment was harsh, but your actions here, hounding the opposers, is unbecoming of an admin. Being stubborn, unrelenting, and obstinate are not character traits of an admin. Sorry, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the ArbCom's decision to desysop you but acknowledge that you felt it was too harsh. I disagree with you on that point. Badger Drink (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimate Oppose Your attempts to resist community consensus only serves to condemn you further in my eyes. We the people have almost overwhelmingly decided that you are unfit to be an administrator. You further justify such an unfavorable consensus by rebelling and trying to protest our decision instead of reasoning our concerns out. You also seem obsessed with the arbcom case, when if you were a fit administrator indeed you would have plenty of supporting evidence to demonstrate good faith (see paragraph below) in spite of the arbcom ruling...which by the way you should have appealed through the proper channels instead of starting a public smear campaign.
The first thing I would do is to pull your nomination, gracefully stand down, and apologize to the arbcom. Then, I would be proactive and demonstrate the classic good behavior that anyone would be expected to engage in before they would ever pass their first RFA. Namely, being civil, watching for, repairing, and reporting vandalism, good editing, and anything else that would be expected of a brand new administrator. Shentino (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. I sympathize but I'm stuck on the fence here. -- œ ^™ 03:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I missed all the drama of Arbcom... but one thing at this RFA is curious. Any first-time candidate with Tango's rate of article space edits (around ten per month) will be SNOW'ed. Here, respected JulianColton praised Tango "as an editor" - what did I miss or is it another case of double standards? NVO (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because most of my work is on the Ref Desks, which are in the WP namespace. It is part of the WP namespace that is aimed at the general public, though, so is very different to the rest of the WP namespace. --Tango (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps one of the standard questions might have had a useful answer? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? I think I gave all the useful information in my nomination statement, including that I've spent most of my time on site on the Ref Desks recently. --Tango (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't know what the situation that prompted the earlier desysopping was all about, so I take no position. However, in response to User:NotAnIP83:149:66:11's comment, is a low contribution rate really that WP:SNOWy? Bwrs (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? It was another editor who suggested a low rate of edits would be SNOWed, not me. My comment was about the standard question "What edits are you proud of", where the candidate could have mentioned the RefDesk work. That the candidate chose to ignore that, and instead chooses to use RfA as an avenue to challenge an ARBCOM ruling speaks volumes. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention the ref desk work - you did read my nomination statement before commenting, didn't you? --Tango (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning towards support. Ikip (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to support, but I really dislike arguing with every other opposer. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Leaning oppose. I'm stuck on the fence here... I feel that the candidate may or may not completely understand the term "involved admin," but I don't really want to argue here...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 11:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Opposing.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, you're a great editor and I'd love to support - but I just can't with that statement about how you don't consider yourself involved as far as MONGO is concerned. Even if you don't consider yourself involved, it's as important to act with caution when you have the appearance of being involved. It's a real failure of judgement to consider that any administrative action you might hypothetically make against MONGO would be anything but an immense drama magnet. ~ mazca ^talk 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Honestly, the only issue keeping me from an enthusiastic support is your unwillingness to accede to consensus and treat MONGO as if you were involved. Note that I don't say that your logic is wrong - in fact, without going through all the facts of the case, I suspect that you are quite probably correct (this is based mostly out of respect for your logical capabilities, which are considerable). Note also that I'm not asking for a retraction or anything of the sort (and would cheerfully defend you against any who demand that you compromise your intellectual integrity), merely a willingness to move on - I've had my own experiences recently on that score. Ray^Talk 15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral in the hopes of moving on. Now's not the time. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I am stuck on the fence and feel that neutral is the best way to go..South Bay (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides of the argument here, yes it was a very serious issue that led to the desysopping. However I think it was an overeaction to desysop. However, because of this I would not be comfortable if Tango was given the extra buttons. Athe Weatherman 16:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Leaning weak support. i really see how this can be seen in two different ways, on one hand the candidate was desysopped for an unjust block but on the other hand the user WAS a qualified administrator that made several good contributions to Wikipedia. I'm just stuck between his first successful run as an administrator and his later questionable behavior.
>>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 04:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits AfC stats BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights