Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Betacommand 2


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

Betacommand
Final (talk page) (70/88/16); ended 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

- Wikipedians!

I am nominating Betacommand for adminship. Betacommand previously had a Rfa which resulted in him being sysopped but later had the flag removed. However, Betacommand's contributions have not changed; they continue to be helpful and productive. Betacommand is both an editor and a bot op, running the extremely helpful BetacommandBot. He has also written and helped many other wikipedians with bots. BC is extremely knowledgeable in fair use policy and has helped shaped wikipedia's non free content policy as well. As an admin I know Betacommand will be able to help clear out all different sorts of backlog, especially when dealing with non free content and rationales. Betacommand is also a civil user. In all situations Betacommand remains civil. On top of all of this, BC is always willing to help out other users and explains procedures and guidelines. Giving Betacommand the admin tools again would greatly help out Wikipedia. ~  Wi ki  her mit  20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: βcommand 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: admins are selected because they are supposed to get things done, Keep CSD clean (many admins dont touch that), our image backlogs, page protections, and vandalism/spam reverting. I do not seek adminship for glory, but instead I want it to help the few poor souls who try and keep those backlogs under control. (Let me take a moment and thank those unnamed user who do the crap jobs)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contribution to wikipedia would have to be my programming skills. I have written BetacommandBot, and also created scripts for theres to use also. With the help of Messedrocker and Radiant, we have overhauled the RfC process and I wrote User:RFC bot that Messedrocker now runs. As for what BetacommandBot does: BCBot moves images to commons per User:Betacommand/Commons. it also tags talkpages with wikiprojects banners, and is starting to work on unassessed articles that are assessed by a different project. one thing that most users have seen is the non-free image rationale tagging. I willingly take request from users who want something done, whether its a newsletter delivery, or creating a replacement for User:DinoSizedBot


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A:yes, I am regularly subject to personal attacks and WP:CIVIL breaches, for the most part I respond in a calm civil uniformity manner, I have on rare occasion been subject to falling for a troll and losing my cool.

Question from Newyorkbrad


 * 4. Please explain what you would do differently if you were resysopped, as compared with during your earlier service as an administrator.


 * A: There is no simple response to this question, however Ill do my best to put what I have learned into words. Care is a key item, previously I would use brief vague statements when doing something, If I knew a page appeared to be a copyvio, and I didn't want to figure out from where. I would just use a generic deletion reason. I have since learned that clearer communication and care are needed. I would also take more care to avoid any COI or perceived CIO, that had gotten me into a little trouble. I will use more care, caution, and clearer communication. βcommand 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from Acalamari

Regardless of your answer, I will remain strongly in support of this RfA. Acalamari 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5. Would you consider putting yourself in Category: Administrators open to recall if this RfA is successful?
 * A:I would not place my self in the category, But I would be willing to resign if users I trust come to me in a calm civil manner and as for it (and there is a consensus)
 * A fine answer to my question. Acalamari 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Matthew
 * 6. What is your opinion of IAR and when do you believe it should be exercised?
 * A. IAR is a double edged sword, there are times where it is needed, and other times it shouldnt be used. IAR cannot be generalized as each and every use of it must be carefully thought out and weighed, thus any use of it needs to be thought out, examined, re-thought out, and applied in a case by case method with little use of it. βcommand 00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7. Could you please show me an example of article development you have participated in?
 * A. my thought is let users do what they do best, I do not have the worlds best writing ability, Instead I choose to do the background work, whether that is helping wikiprojects, working with categories, working with images, vandal fighting, and spam. but that aside Ive go a few articles planned, when I get more available time, after the NFCC mess is sorted out, Im going to be getting more involved in article writing. βcommand 00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 8. You've recently been edit warring without giving reasons, please tell me why you should be trusted with the rollback function?
 * A.Actually that was not an edit war, I assisted an admin when they were deleting images, (I have a simple interactive tool for orphaning images, which I wrote for some third party wiki. (non-wikimedia)) the de-linking was reverted leaving a red linked image. when the image with the same name was uploaded for that article I left it. your "edit war" was just the simple removal of the use of a deleted image. βcommand 00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Betacommand's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Betacommand:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Betacommand before commenting.''

Discussion

 * has arbcom approved this? 86.137.123.74 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! ~  Wi ki  her mit  23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that he required arbcom approval before he could become an admin again. i guess i was wrong? 86.137.123.74 23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * oh my bad. i checked the arbcom finding and he doesn't require approval for an rfa. still, i think he's a good guy and trustworthy as an admin. he does a lot of unpopular dirty work that most people wont touch with a bargepole, puts up with more shit than anyone ive seen on the wiki and usually deals with it calmly and works to resolve the issues. 86.137.123.74 23:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said. ~  Wi ki  her mit  23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm unsure whether to support sysoping Betacommand's account. He has done a tremendous amount of work (some of it controversial) on Wikipedia.  I appreciate that.  I have noticed, as have other editors, however, that his communication with others is poor.  Recently on a noticeboard he responded to the general fervor of bot-related complaints, and seemed to fail to adequately respond to specific questions.  (I don't have any diffs, and do not intend to find them, so consider my comments for whatever they are worth.)  For a while before and after his account was desysoped, I maintained his talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed that he regularly inadequately responded to editors' complaints, and thus created more drama and escalated the situation than if he had responded adequately.  This is my primary concern.  Other concerns editors have - such as a history of bad blocks - might be cause for slightly less drama if he would communicate adequately.  I guess then that I feel reluctant to support sysoping Betacommand's account.  I would like to see more adequate communication with other editors.  Cheers,  --Iamunknown 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One, I have learned a lot since the arb case, blocking active users is a sensitive issue, and thus I do not plan on making those kinds of blocks. (I don't like drama either). In regard to the AN issue I was in the middle of three conversations on three different pages about the same issue. I did not know what was happening or what had caused the issue with the bot, I basically said yes I know there is a problem, I don't know whats causing it, and please give me some time to figure out what was happening. I have been working on maintaining clear communications and have improved a lot since the issue was brought to my atttention. βcommand 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply, Betacommand. I wasn't aware that discussions were ongoing on multiple pages.  I can sympathize with that, and now understand that your response was better than I deemed it, given the circumstances.  (Personally I wish that the editor who initiated the conversation on WP:AN had instead initiated, or joined, the conversation on your talk page, which probably would have made the whole affair less dramatic.)  I do agree that you have improved quite a bit with regards to communication, and this post is evidence of that.  I also agree that blocking active editors is sensitive.  Hmm, I shall think about my comments, and any potential questions.  Again, thanks!  --Iamunknown 03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly clear that BC has solved all of the problems ArbCom has stated. ~  Wi ki  her mit  01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that... he asked arbcom directly if he could have his adminship back, and that didn't work.  Kwsn  (Ni!)  14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would the nominator care to clarify the factual basis for his opinion that the Arbitration Committee is a "kangaroo court"? This sort of language and behavior, when used as the foundation of an RfA, does not benefit the candidate.  &mdash; madman bum and angel 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure where I stand on this. On the other hand, I have very little respect for the ArbCom as an institution, and there are many editors I respect who have supported this RfA. On the other hand, I think the arbitration case did highlight a very real history of inappropriate blocks and lack of communication. We already have several admins who are uncommunicative and unhelpful, and don't think about the emotional consequences of their words and actions towards other editors. At the moment, I'm open to persuasion either way. WaltonOne 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nom. ~  Wi ki  her mit  20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - per Matthew. Seriously, working CSD issues, bot or not, is a dirty job. Kudos to Betacommand for doing it & putting up with a lot of abuse as a result. As someone who has previously been sysopped, the fundamental question is not whether I like the guy or not, but do I trust him with the sysop bit? And the answer is "yes". QED - A l is o n  ☺ 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Support Strong Strongest support I don't believe he'll misuse or abuse the tools again. Acalamari 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to strong support for the following rationale: Betacommand gets hit with a lot of crap over the BetacommandBot from users who don't understand the image policy very well and think the bot is malfunctioning, when in fact, it's just doing it's job. He handles this very well, in my opinion. The BetacommandBot is an excellent and highly useful bot, and it's a bot we shouldn't lose. I don't believe Betacommand will be abusive or misuse the admin tools again because I don't think Betacommand wants to go through arbitration again. I strongly advise that Betacommand take great care in performing blocks, protects, and deletions, and that whenever he's asked about his admin actions, he fully explain them. Regarding the recent ArbCom decision not to resysop him, I do not hold this against him and do not believe it should be held against him. At the moment (as of 21:39 6 September, 2007), this RfA is proving why it's hard to resysop admins desysopped by the Arbitration Committee. Acalamari 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because being desysopped by the committee is just about the most serious loss of trust an admin can develop. To recover from that, particularly given earlier experiences at re-sysopping the de-sysopped, is a difficult feat indeed. Furthermore, to recover from that given that he has not recovered in the eyes of the committee itself is considerably more difficult (I would hope). Splash - tk 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very few of the people opposing really care about the bot. It's messed up in its tagging sometimes, but overall, it's done well, and its function should be completely uncontroversial. The real issue is his judgement, not his bot. -Amarkov moo! 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A user such as Betacommand should not have to suffer another RfA because of the shocking stupidity of Arbcom. Their findings which flew in the face of the communities wishes at the time of Arbitration are nothing short of a disgrace. Nick 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - his ArbCom case is in the past and I believe that Betacommand has learned from his past mistakes. His image tagging work is excellent and I am positive he will use the tools wisely this time. In my opinion, his communication skills have improved significantly since his case and would work with the community should any concerns appear.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Betacommand does work that makes it easier for us to be both free and an encyclopedia. His bot work is merely hated because the English Wikipedia has too much of a fixation on its non-free media and its massive misuse in articles. His arbitration case and subsequent appeal to the arbitration committee should have no meaning here, where we discuss how we feel Betacommand will help us out with a few extra buttons. We know he's learned from past mistakes, and won't be repeating history if he gets his block and delete buttons back.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: I think he has learned his lesson about running bots with a sysop flag :) -- Cobi(t 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support - Lesson learned. He does huge amounts of necessary, thankless work, and the tools will prove a great advantage.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: Betacommand does a lot of unappreciated work in regards to CSD and I believe the ArbCom decision was rather unfair to him. I fully trust him with the tools, appreciate his contributions and believe that the tools themselves won't be misused under his guidance. Good luck.--Auger Martel 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Betacommand cops a ridiculous amount of flak for no good reasons from the cruft-adoring, fair-use-loving fanboy brigade for trying to keep Wikipedia clean of junk that fundamentally contradicts our basic mission. Under such circumstances of intense pressure, I can forgive the odd slip. Moreschi Talk 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strongest support. He knows how to use the tools, he has the experience, he knows fair use policy, and now everyone's watching him. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support Betacommand was a great admin in the past...I miss him as an admin. NHRHS2010 Talk  22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Titanium Support - What can i say, he deserves it. He is very under-appreciated, (come-on give him credit for his hard work). Moreschi proves my point..He has had his bad days but his contribution and his alter-ego's contribution has been Admirable..Best of Luck..-- Cometstyles 22:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support absent any oppose based on post Arbcom decision behavior. I saw none in the dif's provided. It's only been 4 months since the Arbcom case, so I feel I'm going out on a limb here. 6 would have been better. No disrespect to ArbCom, but my hope is that the good this nom does will outweigh the harm he caused.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Expansion on my rationale. I do not feel it is germaine to bring up offenses from before the ArbCom case. Betacommand has had time to consider how to improve his behavior and to understand how the commuinty feels about some past behavior. The time has come to leave the past in the past with expectations of constructive, admin worthy deportment in the future. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support yes. Betacommand has learned from his past mistakes and I've seen him work towards a productive solution at difficult times . Give him another chance.  Melsaran  (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support without question. He's made mistakes... who hasn't?  They were not malicious.  Every time I see Betacommand act, it is with the project's best interests in mind.  We need users and admins like Betacommand. --Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I trust him.  --Kbdank71 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Beta is a great user. If the ArbCom had trouble reaching a consensus, I see no reason by any stretch of the imagination to oppose based on ArbCom precedent. — [ [  Animum  |  talk  ] ] 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Arbcom has never said that BC should never again be an admin.  They have said he should request adminship from the community if he wants it back.  So, if we think he's learned from the problems of the past (I think he has) and he'll continue to work as hard for the project as he always has (I think he will) then let's give it to him.  Chick Bowen 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support unreservedly. I can think of few people who have done more to uphold the core mission of our encyclopedia. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I definitely believe that Wikipedia will benefit from having Betacommand resysnopped. He has done very much good work for the encyclopedia. Captain   panda  23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - The Arbcom did NOT say they he could never be an Admin again. They simply Desyopped him. The Arbcom clearly said that he could reapply whenever he wanted. He is a great editor who made a few mistakes a few months ago and has learned from them. There is no reason he shouldn't be an admin based on something that he has learned from. I trust him.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Betacommand isn't perfect, and has made mistakes in the past. However, he's done a lot of good for the project as an admin, and I think it would be an unfortunate mistake for the community to reject his dedication and expertise. I trust that he has learned from his past mistakes. -- krimpet ⟲  00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Despite comments linked by the opposers like this one, showing Betacommands incivility, BC would be really helpful to the project if given back the tools. Its a shame that BC was desysopped, since now it will be really hard to regain the administrative rights, but I believe that BC has learned to be more careful and would value more the new tools and use them with care in case of RfA success, knowing that they can be taken away in case of misuse. ♠  TomasBat 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I have worked a great deal with you over the last year or so, especially in the last several months. You always work with the best interests of the project in mind and you never go for personal glory.  You do the thankless tasks that many others wish not to do, but which must be done.  I've been waiting for this to happen and I hope it is successful.  Regardless of how it turns out, you will always have my support. --After Midnight 0001 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Support. Betacommand's an iffy case of course, users either think he's great or he's terrible. In my case, I think he's great, and should be given the tools back. He's THE guy I go to regarding image questions, script questions, etc. I know there's issues, but the risks are far overshadowed by the benefits I believe. Wizardman  01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support: It is unfortunate that some people are more focused on the how friendly someone is in their discussions, rather than on the integrity of the project. Betacommand has shown a strong commitment to the latter and deserves to be readmined. Danny 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect and despite my own, albeit weak, support of Betacommand, this is a bizarre comment. For one thing adminship is not a reward given out to users committed to the project. Moreover, you seem to be saying that it's acceptable for Betacommand to be rude as long as he's committed to the project. It certainly is not and the damage done by admins with short fuses and hot tempers is hard to repair. If Betacommand is going to be the bulldozer of an admin that he used to be then clearly the effect of his resysoping will be negative. Pascal.Tesson 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support - all the problems of the arbcom thing have been addressed as far as I can tell. He has learned how to communicate correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs)
 * 2) Support. No he's not perfect. He has been uncivil on occasion in the past, though not without provocation. I am also sure he has learned from the events surrounding his desysopping and will be all the better for it. Betacommand does a lot of crucial and excellent work here: work that few others are willing to partake in and brings him a lot of often unfair and unfounded criticism. With all his efforts in this department, I believe that the net effect of Betacommand becoming an admin again will be beneficial to the project. Will (aka Wimt ) 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support BC has been really helpful towards others. I just wish there was some way that the arbcom committee could put BC on admin patrol, where he could be monitored instead of his admin powers being taken away all together. Do you think there can be some sort of appeal to arbcom or agreement by the community to put him on an administrative patrol trial? I know that this is currently occurring with another administrator at this point in time.  Mi r a n da   01:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support To stop him badgering the rest of us to do his work ~ Riana ⁂ 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, seriously - I find him to be reliable, trusted, knowledgeable and someone who does a lot of very thankless work for little encouragement and a lot of flak. Is an asset and should be allowed to perform his old duties again. Time served and all that ~ Riana ⁂ 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Aye. In case of accident, we'll behead you again as needed, I am sure. -- Y not? 03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Very very very strong support. I would trust BC with the buttons, without question. DESPITE the way we've been treating him, he STILL runs that bot, which does a lot to help WP, with FU image problems, which, not only is a thankless job, it's a job that seems to get you attacked, every hour or so. I'd like to see how civil some of us would be, if confronted with the same. SQL(Query Me!) 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Just barely support On the whole, I think resysoping Betacommand would have a positive impact but I do share the concerns about his lack of civility, often unduly aggressive approach to conflict, as well as the issues raised in the ArbCom case. It seems likely that this RfA will fail which accurately reflects the community's lack of trust in Betacommand. Still, as I argued in Elonka's last RfA, I think it would be wiser of us all to be more forgiving, at least to a certain extent. Undoubtedly, Betacommand would be kept on a very short leash were he resysoped and although he says he would not be formally open to recall, the reality is that any sort of abuse on his part would quickly (and deservedly so) turn into much fuss on ANI, RfC and ArbCom. Call me naive, but I believe that this partly guarantees that he won't be a problematic admin. Pascal.Tesson 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per all the above reasons. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. That the arbcom declined to re-sysop him is irrelevant to this discussion.  Too many people are viewing this inaction as a de facto prohibition on Beta's being made an administrator when it is clearly not the case.  The fundamental question we should be asking ourselves at this RfA is not "Does Arbcom think this user should be an admin?" but rather "Do I trust this user to be an admin?"  By blindly opposing just because arbcom did is tantamount to surrendering the voice of the community in deference to the voice of one committee.  That is most certainly not how consensus works, is not how RfA is supposed to work, and is fundamentally in opposition to the core spirit of the project :/  Had Arbcom issued a ruling saying "This user cannot be sysopped" that might be one thing, but all they did was decline to do so themselves.  The rest of us editors have a voice, too.  As far as the question at hand, my answer is yes, I can trust this user. ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 15:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but I don't think people are saying "oppose because arbcom said so". When I suggest people review the case when pondering this question, it's because I want them to see the large pile of evidence of poor behavior on his part.  The arbcom's opinons are their own.  But the facts presented in the case are objective and speak for themselves.  Friday (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I apologize if I painted the opposition in too broad a stroke. Certainly there is nothing wrong with pointing to previous arbcom findings rather than regurgitating all of the diffs by hand here to make one's point.  I guess I got a little worked up because there are some people whose opposition does amount, almost entirely, to "Arbcom turned down his request to be sysopped, so we should too" and that kind of thing just really rubs me wrong - I didn't mean to insinuate that everyone in opposition was taking that stance. <b style="color:#0000FF;">ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I echo Pascal and Danny. Civility is an issue, but one which Betacommand seems to be addressing. More to the point, Betacommand would be subject to far more scrutiny than a normal admin, given past history. I think his knowledge, skill, and overall contributions outweigh the concerns listed below, most of which actually seem to stem from his communicative style in some way. Hiberniantears 15:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Extreme supper strong support. Wikipedia needs more admins who want to do the dirty work that Betacommand does.  He shouldn't have lost his bit to begin with.  He pisses people off because of the important work he does.  Corvus cornix 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support Betacommand is a workhorse of an editor and clearly gets things dones. Adminship isn't a big deal, it is just giving trusted users a few extra tools. Betacommand is the sort of editor who will use the tools. Most RfAs claim that they will help with CSD and other backlogs, but how many actually do? I am 100% positive that this user WILL be more productive than most admins in the mundane tasks that only users with sysop tools can perform. RfA shouldn't be a popularity contest. Betacommand doesn't have to be our best friend. And Betacommand isn't scared to tackle the tougher areas, such as the non-free image backlogs (a place clearly where you aren't going to make friends). I believe Betacommand has learned from the Arbcom case and I believe will not make the same mistakes twice. -Andrew c [talk] 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - ArbCom made a very bad move in desysopping him. Arbitration remedies, as much as blocks, are to be preventative. Desysopping Betacommand implied that he was a danger to the project with a mop. Such a finding is, quite frankly, stupid, based on the findings of fact of that case. Running adminbots to perform absolutely mundane tasks is not one of the seven deadly wikisins. In desysopping Betacommand, ArbCom ignored the fact that Betacommand has done a huge amount of work for this project, and cares very much for its success. Since his desysopping, Betacommand took the incredibly annoying and thankless job of fair use patrolling, and put up with kilobytes of various bitching and moaning from people who got their favorite <insert TV show name> screenshot deleted. It takes a lot of patience to deal with fair use fanatics, which assures me that Betacommand will use the tools justly and appropriately, and will NOT cause damage to the project. Because becoming an administrator is no big deal, right? Sean William @ 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Very Strongly Support Very trusworthy editor, worthy of adminship --Sunderland06 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Also, as an aside to some of the opposers, I want to point out that just because Arbcom refused to preform a fiat sysoping of Betacommand, they have not declared that Betacommand is unqualified or unfit to be a sysop at the present time.  I feel strongly that it is outside of Arbcom's purview to declare Betacommand a sysop at this point so soon after a defrocking without an RFA, and would have been miffed by such an action given the circumstances; however, those of you  who claim that the arbiters believe that Betacommand is an unfit sysop are probably reading too much into the recent vote.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Betacommand actions could be described as controversial but i personally consider them to be for the benefit of Wikipedia in general. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Really, Really, Really Strong support A brill user. Will make a great admin-- Phoenix 15 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Brianherman 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support Betacommand is a wonderful editor, an unequaled image policy expert, and, to top it all off, an all-around coding genius. I see no reason to oppose such a fine Wikipedian, and a fine individual. Yes, you can bring up his Arbitration case, but it is clear that he has learned from his mistakes, and I am sure that that will never happen again. It truly pains me to see such a fine, responsible editor opposed for an issue that will most certainly never reappear. It's hard to see editors here say "If the ArbCom doesn't want him to be an administrator, then neither do I". Your decision to support or oppose an RfA should be based on your own opinions, not solely the opinions of others. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we'd understand that people change for the better. Terribly, though, many of the opposers of this candidate have failed to see how much progress Betacommand has made since that RfAr. He might not have made a good administrator then, but now, he would be one of the greatest in all of Wikipedia. It is truly a shame to see a person who could truly help here be turned down by the people he would've ended up helping. With high hopes and heavy heart,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  19:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per Pascal Tesson and Alison. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support All my interactions with Beta have been nothing but good. Jmlk  1  7  22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Support I think Beta's behavior greatly improved the past few months. Given the amount of biting he received by newcomers and regulars, I'm impressed he is still willing to help us improve the encyclopedia. I hope this RfA won't fail because people didn't want to take into account / bother to check how Betacommand's behavior changed.-- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Moral support - I think ß is a great editor, who kicks us all in the seat of the pants to get us to do things right. It might smart, but it's for a good reason. That being said, I admit some worries given the opposition. Good luck Betacommand. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per Alison and Riana. ElinorD (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per Alison. He does work that is normally hated by other wikipedians; therefore making our tasks easier! --<font color="blue" face="Times new roman" size="3">Hirohisat Kiwi 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) GeorgeMoney (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Beta has done a lot of controversial work, and has taken a lot of beating from that.  I understand the responses he has given to that.  For the rest, it is time served, it is time to give Beta the bit back.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong Support for many of the reasons given by others above.. --Versageek 15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Strongest Possible Support, the community needs more administrators who are willing to do what's right, even if it's not popular. Betacommand is one of those.  ^  demon <sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz]  <em style="font-size:10px;">19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support He shouldn't be opposed for running the bot. Copyright matters.  I agree that βcommand could still stand to be more communicative.  But I also think he's learned from the mistakes of the past and has made a good faith effort to communicate more.  I hope that in the future, he's given another chance, as it's pretty unlikely he'll get the bit back this time around. --JayHenry 06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Nobody's perfect, but he's doing a good job overall and the encyclopedia would benefit from giving him the mop back.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) —<tt>freak(talk)</tt> 14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. I don't believe he would abuse admin tools. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Does a lot of necessary work around here.  Who will pick up the slack? --  But | seriously | folks   16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - works hard at a tough job that needs to be done; I trust him to use the tools to benefit the project. Tom Harrison Talk 18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support because he does what is right, even though it is hard and unappreciated work, and rewarded with little but abuse.  Antandrus  (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support He does do a lot dirty work and gets no credit.-- Sandahl 22:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support This is an RFA for Betacommand, not Betacommandbot. BC puts up with a lot of crap because of the work the bot does and the occasional glitches. I don't have an issue with BC's civility; terseness is not the same as incivility. This may be too late, but I believe BC should get his admin rights back. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) VoL†ro/\/Force 06:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - I believe in second chances. I believe in forgiveness. I believe the indefinite desysopping was excessive.  But please keep your bot away from the tools. -- B  23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Support - Thanks for addressing my recent concerns with BetacommandBot so quickly. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"> Jreferee  (Talk) 02:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Unreliable and cannot be trusted. Giano 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you name me one reliable and trustworthy administrator? ..(I don't think so) ..-- Cometstyles 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can name you thousands. If you can't name even one, Cometstyles, then your definitions of "trustworthy" and "reliable" are very different to mine. -- Boricu æ  ddie  02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see you try, considering the fact that there are only 1,314 administrators around...  Sebi  [talk] 08:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * lolz, he probably didn't mean it literally. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose — I've had experiences with this user and nonr have been pleasant. I don't think he was/would be a good administrator. My experiences with User:Betacommand have shown me that he is:
 * Rude
 * Highly uncivil
 * Belligerent
 * Betacommand also has poor communicative skills (such as bad grammar or lame insults). He also runs one of the most (if not the only) defective bots on Wikipedia which is constantly being discussed/blocked due to an endless amount of bugs (blocklog). Honestly I think Betacommand would utilise the sysop tools to: a) unblock his bot when it "develops" another bug, b) block people he is in disagreement with and c) use the rollback tool to edit war quickly. I'm not even sure if he's even interested in the encyclopaedia, he seems to like politics and enforcing his view of policy... yet I don't think he's ever done any article work. Matthew 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on a sec... You aren't so innocent yourself. You goaded him with remarks like that, until he snapped. I can't say I blame him, either. That's a really nasty thing to say to someone. And, as far as the grammar diff, it might not have been perfect, but, what he was trying to say, was clear. SQL(Query Me!) 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Bcommand that requests for adminship, not Matthew. And once BC wants to be resysoped, he must stop "snap" like that. @pple complain 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That diff was also from almost 4 months ago... Do we have anything more recent? SQL(Query Me!) 21:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So speculation and bad grammar, eh? Well, I can't argue with you on those oppose grounds... — [ [  Animum  |  talk  ] ] 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that he has poor grammar but at the same time you want him to write articles? Haha. 86.137.123.74 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The only relevant question is, how will he use the admin tools?  RFA is tricky because we almost always have to guess.  Here, we need to do no guessing, we only need look at how he used them before they were taken away.  From the very beginning of his admin career, his admin actions were frequently highly questionable.  Mistakes are certainly allowed, but this goes beyond a simple mistake.  (I edited my comment comment here; the original follows: I think Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand is informative here.  Betacommand has a history of poor judgment and poor communication regarding his activities.  We don't have to guess how he would use the admin tools, we already know.)  Friday (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - sorry, man. I respect you, and I appreciate everything you do here, but if the Arbitration Committee doesn't want you to be an admin, then neither do I. You are constantly uncivil and blocked. It'd be madness to give you admin rights if you constantly make mistakes with your bot. Also, you don't have much mainspace participation. Again, sorry. -- Boricu æ  ddie  21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Eddie, you're a great guy, but I'm afraid I have no choice but to disagree with you. I would like to emphasize that this is an RfA, not an Arbitration case. Yes, he was desysopped by the ArbCom, and yes, they turned down his appeal. But that, in no way, shape, or form should prevent you from supporting him here. RfA is great because it's controlled by the consensus of the community, and not through the consensus of the Arbitration Committee. If what you say is true, in that you respect him and everything he does here, then why can't you support? Simply because they're on the Arbitration Committee does not mean that a small group of users, in terms of RfA consensus, have precedence over the entire community. It truly is terrible to watch the hopes of a user with great administrator potential crumble over a decision made by nine members of a committee over 3 months ago. Sadly,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Matthew, regarding the communitive skills, and I think you make enough errors without admin tools to make things worse. Your recent RfAr is showing/has shown that the arbitrators do not want you to be resysopped. I agree with them.  Majorly  (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On present form, the Arbitrators judgement simply cannot be trusted. Nick 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion Nick, but yes they can, in this case. I agree with them totally.  Majorly  (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did mean to say it's only the Arbitrators opinion not to return Beta's tools. The community should completely disregard the Arbitration committee if they so desire. Nick 21:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm wrong, but WP:ARBCOM says: "Arbitration Committee is a group of users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes." I don't think we can "disregard" their decisions at our will. -- Boricu æ  ddie  22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case may be about ignoring the ArbCom, I agree with them here. I wish good luck to Betacommand, and hope that if he passes he treads extremely carefully so as to not have any more problems.  Majorly  (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee declined to re-sysop Betacommand on its own authority, but specifically allowed him to seek restoration at RfA. The difference is subtle, but important. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The arbitration committee gave two options for Betacommand to be resysopped, either through an appeal or through the RfA process. The appeal process showed considerable support from the Arbitrators with 3 of the committee in favour of Betacommand having his administrator tools returned. The arbitrators sadly fell into the trap of confusing a controversial subject (images and fair use) with Betacommand's actually behaviour which is not controversial). Given the flip flopping displayed by the committee with Arbitrators previously against desysopping refusing to support the appeal, I strongly suggest the community ignores the previous Arbitration case and/or the actions of his bot and focuses on Betacommand. Nick 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying to ignore the arbitration case? You have got to be kidding. It's highly relevant to how he used him admin tools. We have the tremendous benefit on this RFA that we can look at how the candidate already used the tools. Why on earth would we ignore relevant information when making an important decision like this? Friday (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply because you agree with the kangaroo court doesn't mean they're right. <font color="#777">~  Wi ki  her mit  23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking anyone to buy whatever arbcom says. Read the case for yourself.  Or, if this is too much, just skim the findings of fact.  They're not lying.  He regularly made bad blocks and was unwilling to learn from people's disagreements with his actions.  Bad blocks are probably the single most drama-causing thing that can go wrong.  We don't need more of this.  Friday (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for the moment Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand raised many, many issues and trust is of high importance for me when it comes to adminship. Would like to see a longer post-desysop history of evidence of trust. Highly respected but I can't support yet. Sorry, GDonato (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * => this should not be taken to be a negative review of Betacommand's post-RfArb work, which has been good. GDonato (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I see no reason to oppose. If his post arbcom issues are answered, their should be no concerns. <font color="#777">~  Wi ki  her mit  21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Trust issues do not disappear overnight, this will take time to rebuild. Betacommand has now shown some trustworthiness as an editor but I still have doubts when it comes to adminship. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I am sorry but I am going to have to oppose.  While Bcommand has made some good contributions that shape Wikipedia, such as our NFCC, I do not trust this user, mostly because of his controversial bot.  I also oppose because of how he deals with other users that may get him to respond without his cool (Q #3).  The RFAR on this user's behalf is also very scary when someone comments in this RFA.  The block log is also shamefully scary. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">O (说 • 喝) 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "I do not trust this user, mostly because of his controversial bot" - his bot has been approved for every task it run. Also, I don't understand how having a bot, controversial or not, qualifies a user to be an admin. The last block of any value was nearly 6 months ago in March. <font color="#777">~  Wi ki  her mit  21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While it may have been approved before the task was run, the scope of the editors commenting is pretty low. However, some has gotten to be a bit controversial, but still enforcing policy.  One of its tasks I remember was tagging non-free media without rationales and informing only the uploader, and discussion later suggested that it could've also informed other venues (i.e. article talk page) where others could've added a rationale.  I don't know if Bcommand followed the advice or not, but another concern I've forgotten to add is if Bcommand can actually go with consensus.  Even more, there were blocks today and yesterday which meant that Bcommand should thrice-check his code for bugs before running it on a live wiki.  Running bots mean that you need a high level of trust, and I do not believe Bcommand has earned my trust at this time. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">O (说 • 喝) 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose nominator states: "BC is always willing to help out other users and explains procedures and guidelines" I have not found this to be the case, not even close. The only time I've been driven to (try) quitting wikipedia has been due to frustrations over this issue. Pete.Hurd 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Far too controversial. Just yesterday his bot "ran amuck" again. The user hasn't changed. --- RockMFR 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This RfA is for Betacommand, not his bot. His bot's shortcomings are not going to worsen if he is promoted. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted. Yet, the fact that he allows the bot to run loose says much about him.  If I make a tool, and it does not work properly, the modest thing to do is to disable it and do my best to fix it.  If I simply unblock it and say "the user has been notified of the problems" (as the mominee did) it shows that I care more about my bot running around then about the project and some desirable values that we should have.  Furthermore, if my bot gets blocked, as an admin it is not my place to unblock it.  The right thing to do is to let another admin unblock it to avoid WP:COI.  Why WP:COI one may ask?  Well, a bot should not be a tool to boost ones ego; it should be a tool for the community. Brusegadi 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well duh he turns his bot off and fixes it when something goes wrong. Can you give me one instance of where this hasn't happened? The blocking of the bot for a long period is unnecessary once Beta has been notified because he can just turn the bot off. It's not that he has a COI, it's just that there's no point in having it blocked when it's no longer a threat. Preventative, not punitive, remember? His bot doesn't 'run amok', it makes thousands and thousands of useful edits and has an incredibly low error rate, and what errors are caused are usually due to people not doing things properly rather than the bot's coding.86.137.123.74 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too controversial. Per this Rude Comment, and also his block log for his bot. I am not just opposing about his bot, I am opposing because of the rude comment. It shows lack of self-control. And this is the block log of Betacommand. This came to me upon further review. The arbcom just 2 days ago had a vote to give back admin powers to Betacommand. It failed. That also says the arbcom does not have faith in you yet. Sorry.  Pat <sup style="color:#000000;">Politics rule!  22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That diff was from May, and regarding the block log for the bot see ST47's response to RockMFR above. Acalamari 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) That comment was made nearly four months ago and was a result of matthew bugging betacommand. BC hadn't been validly block since at least March, IMO. The block in July was a mistake, which I can understand as a bot op myself. <font color="#777">~  Wi ki  her mit  22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But the rude comment to Matthew is not acceptable. That is not how an admin should act.  Pat <sup style="color:#000000;">Politics rule!  22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Matthew was accusing him of stealing. 86.137.123.74 23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Politics rule, have you even bothered reading the block log you added in, or did you just see it looked big. Every one of his 5 blocks was overturned the same day as inappropriate.  Majorly  (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG..We are allowed to have rude Editors on Wikipedia who can go about criticizing other editors without being Blocked, But admins should have a Clean-Sheet..Give me break..I'd rather have someone who actually contributes to Wikipedia be an Admin, then someone who wastes their time Critcising Possible Admin candidates..-- Cometstyles 11:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry majorly, but not all of those blocks were incorrect - the most recent one by me was absoloutely correct, as a bot not running on a bot account should immediately be blcoked per WP:BOT. However that shouldnt be taken into account when reviewing his block log, as it was a simple matter of forgeting to change a setting in pywiki. Viridae Talk 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said any of them were incorrect, I simply said they were overturned by admins who thought they wre. I have no opinion on it.  Majorly  (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I seem to remember quite a few cases where his civility was lacking in dealing with people complaining about his bot. Wether they were in the right or the wrong, running a bot like this is likely to attract a lot of comments and some of what I have seen has been terse at best. Add that to the committee's opinion that they can't trust him with the tools and you have my oppose. Viridae Talk 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nope. Began to go off the rails immediately after his first RfA, didn't stop until forced to do so. Given evidence of abuse and misuse of his admin tools, and the exceptionally poor communication that went with it, there is every reason not to re-sysop. I can't see why we need to, given the regular production from this page of admins without a track-record of bad stuff. Furthermore, he went through that POINT-making (in the actual, experimental disruption meaning of the page) phase of username tantrums by dumping hundreds of them on WP:AIV in temper. Much demonstration is made above of continuing issues of incivilty. Also, the question of the operation of Betacommandbot and the endless trials and tribulations it causes are material here: the complaints about them are in general handled at the highest level of indignation. Finally, the arbitration committee has just last week or so refused to re-sysop him, which advice is good; and this after de-sysopping him in almost record time in the first place. Splash - tk 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose bot is not compliant. Though this is optional, making and running such a bot on a large scale does not show the kind of intentions I want to see with an administrator. User:Krator (t c) 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's completely stupid Krator. Whether or not a bot follows nobots does not determine whether BC should be sysopped or not. Besides, what if I didn't have rationales for a fair use image and added the nobots template? <font color="#777">~   Wi ki  her mit  23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We're discussing adminship for the user, Krator, not the user's bot. If User:BetacommandBot runs for adminship, that would probably be a more appropriate time to oppose based on the technical specifications, merits, and, deficiencies of User:BetacommandBot. SQL(Query Me!) 18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the user used his adminship tools to operate a bot, which is wrong to do. All deletions should be done by hand.  There are administrators who still have their flag that operate bots inappropriately under it, but that does not excuse the behavior.  He used sysop functions with his bot so yes the two are inseparable and goes to technical specs, merits and deficiencies.  And let's not go calling other opinions stupid just because they don't work for you, Wikihermit.   Keegan talk 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually inappropriate for his bot to follow nobots. The bot's purpose is to find images without valid sources, rationales and licence information, and to remove instances of non free images being used outwith the main namespace. If the bot was programmed to follow the nobots then it would be easy to effectively hide images from assesment by the bot, something that could see images being uploaded without the necessary information and going unnoticed. If BCBot does come visiting your userpage or an image you've uploaded, it's because you're not following the various image usage policies we have on Wikipedia. This is a typical example of the abuse and confused commentary Betacommand, other editors like Durin and administrators who work with non free images have to put up with every single day. Nick 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have anything specific against the bot. I do not want to discuss that bot, nor make attacks on its implementation. What matters to me, is the intention behind the bot. Making it ignore the nobots template is the wrong intention: it places the judgement of a bot above the judgement of editors. This is a fundamentally wrong intention, and an intention I do not want any administrator to have. User:Krator (t c) 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to respond to Krator, I ask why should the bot be nobot compliant when there is no valid use for such a template? and as a side note users who have come to me with valid reasons that they should not be notified, (lots of image vandalism reversions, png conversions and others) I do have a small list of users that the bot will not warn. But users coming just to say that they dont like the fact that the bot tagged their image, or that the user is a known for such violations would not be added to the list. βcommand 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - While this editor does a lot of very valuable work, the civility issues concern me. --Bongwarrior 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above and ... last 1,000 edits reveal apparently nothing but removals of images, links and other content. I think adding to articles rather than just removing from them is important to being able to make good decisions as an admin. --W.marsh 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Being a sysop gives you access to technical features. Writing articles has little to do with being a sysop. Not everyone is great with article writing. <font color="#777">~  Wi ki  her mit  23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But we're not robots, an apt analogy in this specific case, I think. Being an admin not as simple as just following a set of rules, in fact Wikipedia has intentionally avoided that kind of an environment. Doing what's best for an article means having a feel for what makes a good article, not just having what NFCC says memorized. This user has demonstrated many poor decisions based on lack of article writing knowledge... for example once I remember his bot was removing any links to any domains he considered bad sites. It's true that many links to MySpace, Google groups, etc. will be bad, but all won't be... and this is something article writing would inform one about. On another note, other than responding to the many complaints about his bot, I see no involvement by the user in other sorts of disputes, like content disputes. I've looked through his past 5,000 article edits now, spanning 6 months, and see literally nothing but formulaic removals of content. If it weren't so one-sided, I'd reconsider... but in 6 months this user apparently has never edited an article except to remove content, and 95% of the time it was following some set rule, making many robot-like edits at the same time. This pattern just gives me very little confidence. --W.marsh 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Writing articles has little to do with being a sysop." I hope you're not going to request adminship again soon, Wikihermit. How do you think admins solve disputes, close AfDs, and protect pages? They do this by using their knowledge of the policies and guidelines anout what should and should not be used in articles. If the user doesn't have much recent article editing, then we have no way of knowing whether he knows these rules and knows how to enforce them. Article writing is important for adminship. -- Boricu æ  ddie  01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per the civility issues above, and my own observation/experience. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose As has been stated above, most admins are promoted without really knowing how they will act once they have the bit. In this case we do know and it was a sorry story of blantantly ignoring established procedure and arrogantly ignoring other users. This only stopped because of the ArbCom's involvement. I have no doubt that Betacommand would not be so blatant in future, but they have shown their true colours and I cannot imagine ever trusting this individual with adminship again. TigerShark 23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, while I appreciate that Betacommand makes many valuable contributions, there were serious issues that led to desysopping and it is far too soon to tell if Betacommand has learned from those mistakes. It has only been four months.  Even if we wipe the slate clean, a four month track-record is not enough for adminship. Johntex\talk 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. He's done good work at times in the past, but I'm not ready to trust him in a position of authority again, at least not yet. Sorry. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongest possible oppose Earlier this year he removed an entire section from Gerry Adams, claiming that that those sources are not reliable and are anti-adams POV/slander sites and they were very POV sources. This was completely false, as I debunked those claim here. He also removed a paragraph that that was sourced by four different books, clearly meeting the "proper sourcing and Multiple reliable sources" he requested, and refused to answer any questions about why that paragraph was removed as this shows. Totally appalling judgement, and a blatant refusal to admit to or discuss his mistake. One Night In Hackney  303  00:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Those edits were nearly four months ago! <font color="#777">~  Wi ki  her mit  01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I consider someone who has judgement that poor to be a lost cause. His claims were not backed up the facts, and when challenged on this he refused to engage in discussion. From what I've seen since, his lack of communication skills are just as bad today. One Night In Hackney  303  01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As the arbcom says, history of poor judgement, history of inappropriate blocks, bad communication, inappropriate conduct concerning due process of wikipedia which is highly needed when running mass edit bots and you want to make him admin. Doesn't need admin to help with image backlogs.--Dacium 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Poor judgment, poorly thought out blocks, brittle, defensive and uncivil demeanor...bad enough for an editor but not at all appropriate for an admin. Danny's comments above are off the mark, being civil and defending the integrity of the project are both important and are both core values. Both qualities are necessary in an admin/editor..."defending the Wiki" without behavioral guidelines would leave us barking at each other while wondering why fewer and fewer new editors are coming on board or stay long enough to be productive. Defending the integrity of the project is done on many fronts. RxS 05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The things which got the candidate desysopped was not a single bad incident as in the case of Carnildo, but a pattern which lasted over a long time. There was demonstrated a serious lack of communication, explanation, and consideration, and the rather abbreviated response to question 3 (conflicts) does nothing to alleviate that concern. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Betacommand's conduct since his defrocking has been every bit as disgraceful as before. I urge him to move away from IRC (which brought him into disrepute) and to channel his activities in a more positive way than fighting harmless userspace pages of departed wikipedians. This suggests a serious lack of judgment. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - The user has not provided us with enough evidence of change on his part. Many of his recent edits are mainly routine deletions and such and not interactions with people, so we have not really seen how the user will act under stress. If he did not have a history this would be fine.  However, it is known that he loses it sometimes.  So, I am afraid that the editor will pull a 'Bus Uncle' (featured article baby!) on someone.  This coupled with civility issues and other concerns raised above make it not possible for me to support the editor any time soon.  I think your RfA may be more successful if you do some work that requires interaction for a while.  This will make more of the community get to know you and, more importantly, you will get the opportunity to erase any sign of concern off the minds of those opposing today.  Thanks, Brusegadi 06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per most of the people above. Poor communication skills, poor behaviour, poor attitude. I haven't seen enough change in recent months to believe that this time will be any different from the last. No thanks. Sarah 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Betacommand is dedicated to a difficult job which does not require the administrator bit. Maybe because of this, Betacommand tends to be a poor communicator and tends to require mediation, rather than facilitating it himself. Also the timing of this request, just after a request at arbcom for resysopping was rejected is a little worrying. I think that Betacommand is a good editor who should not be an admin at this time. AKAF 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strangly, I agree with Krator. Sorry mate, but that pushed me over the line in to oppose territory. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As was mentioned to User:Krator by myself, and, another user, you should know, that User:BetacommandBot is not up for adminship. I'm sure, if it ever did come up for RFA, it'd be shot down pretty quick, but, it's not, User:Betacommand is, however, I can't say for sure, wether or not User:Betacommand is compliant.... :)    —Preceding unsigned comment added by SQL (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying he wouldn't be noadmins compliant, but BCbot IS under his control. It's still him who's making the call. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the bot is made by him. The way the bot operates can therefore be reliably judged to be according to the editing standards of the user. See above. User:Krator (t c) 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I cannot possibly support this RfA when there's civility issues raised as per previous comments. The ArbCom case was quite troubling - Betacommand excerised incredibly poor judgement previously, and I do not believe four months is an adequate time period to be nominating for Adminship again considering the details in the case.  Pursey  Talk 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Splash. It's not his bot that bothers me, but his uncommunicative demeanor.  His past record shows he cannot be trusted to deal with the mop in a open, friendly, constructive manner. Xoloz 13:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Missing the sense of community and the civility gene that make for a successful admin. Unnecessarily rough-edged implementation of a bot affecting an enormous number of users. No thanks. Wiggy! 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Forum shopping. ArbCom turned down your request to get it back that way, and the fact you're trying here shows to me you're not ready. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn   (Ni!)  14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Adminship is not a big deal, so why be so eager to get it back, and to hold on to it so fiercely per answer to Q4? I believe candidate should be willing to give some concessions to the community; since it's not the case, perhaps restoring his admin privs is not such a good idea at the time. Roadmr (t|c) 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Ok first of all, I think people are bringing up the past a little too much here - yes, there's plenty of cause for concern there, but I feel it's against the spirit of the ArbCom ruling to not be even open to the idea of a resysopping.  However, Betacommandbot has been a consistent problem (as recently as yesterday: see WT:CSD, and is still a problem now.  If Betacommand wants to win my trust back, I think the best way will be for him to show that he will change his approach to his bot.  In particular, it's obvious that Betacommand changes the bot's code regularly, in order to change its functionality; he does this without approval, warning, or testing, and it frequently causes malfunctions.  I advise Betacommand to reread WP:B and to understand that his bot, unlike most of the others, is unpredictable, frequently harmful, and undocumented.  If Betacommand can address these issues and make his bot something that people have real input on, that he communicates about the bot well and is appropriately cautious with it, then I would be willing to say that he has changed his approach and can be similarly trusted to handle admin tools well again.  In a sense, Betacommand is in a unique position to be able to regain the community's trust, since being a bot operator is very much like being an admin; they both have power for good and for evil, and they are trusted to restrain themselves and be communicative.  But he's not the kind of bot operator i'd want to see as an admin, at least not right now.  Mango juice talk 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. --- RockMFR 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I can understand that Betacommand must be frustrated at the regular complaints he receives about his bot (most of which are baseless and simply consist of dissatisfaction with, ignorance of, or apathy toward the non-free content policy), but I have concerns regarding his communication. For instance: point 10 of the notice on his talk page; a similar sentiment could be expressed without use of the terms "whine and complain". Black Falcon (Talk) 17:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. While the work with images is important, I must oppose as per the Arb Com @  -- Marcsin |Talk 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No. I have no way to know that I could trust this user again with the tools, per their unnecessary, irrational blocks of other users. -- Kicking222 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The user does not respond appropriately to queries about admin actions, and has used the tools inappropriately in the past.  Good editor for sure, but it is my feeling we gave it the ol' college try the first time around and things didn't work out.  Not all are meant to be custodians- someone has to do the work that needs cleaned up after.   Keegan talk 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, will go Sideways with mop, again. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, as the response from some of the members of AbCom on the recent request to AbCom to restore sysop goes, maybe somewhere down the road, but I don't think issues that have arisen in the past have settled down enough yet. KTC 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose The notion that we should disregard the pre-ArbComm behaviour is ludicrous, and reason to disregard the opinions of those who support with that logic. We should give extra weight to his behaviour as an admin, all of which is from before the ArbComm.  In November 2006 he was blocked for using a deletion bot as an administrator.  Unblocked then as " don't think he is going to do that again", in February he was again blocked for using a bot on the main account.  He never responded on his RfC.  He is running untested, poorly considered bot tasks, which he knows would be highly controversial even if the coding was bug free.  And it is regularly buggy as he keeps changing what the bot is actually doing.  The evidence since he lost admin tools is that he will repeat the sort of behavior that led to losing them.  So, as a preventative measure, he should not get them back.  GRBerry 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per all the above. I could add more details, but it's just be rubbing extra salt.Rlevse 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Johntex. ~ Danelo 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Sarah, too soon after desyropping Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose One of the complaints brought by the community in Betacommand's ArbCom case was that he was simply "brushing off" legitimate complaints about his action, and not admitting or understanding that he was at fault. His answer to question 3 shows that he has still not learnt anything from this, as he considers all his conflicts to be due to other users who make "personal attacks and WP:CIVIL breaches". Also, admins need to be open to communication from other users, and having a template with a huge stop sign on your talk page that basically says "f*** off" does not really help that. Is he back? 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per all of the above, especially the continuing problems with civility, and the continuing problems with his bot. In response to those who have argued that his bot has nothing to do with him becoming an admin, on the contrary, his bot is a tool, just like the admin tools we are considering giving to him, and how he operates one tool can reveal a lot about how he will likely operate others. Also, because I believe that hyperfocusing on strict enforcement of rules (such as the non-free content criteria), is contrary to Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Ironically, I might not have even noticed this RfA if not for the bot's most recent bug of incorrectly tagging fair-use images which had valid fair-use rationales. DHowell 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. The ArbCom found multiple instances of poorly-thought-out behavior, such as blocking a lot of harmless usernames, and unprotecting lots of people's userpages, many of which were protected in defense against editors posting personal information (such as mine.) The only answer he was able to come up with for doing his was that he was clearing some backlog. Just recently there was a thread on ANI because he was proposing deletion of lots of users' harmless subpages. I wouldn't want to give the admin tools back when I know he has used them for very counter-productive purposes such as this, when there is reasonable evidence he would do so again. There are more pressing issues than clearing some random 'backlog' at the very bottom of the list of possible tasks on Wikipedia, and doing so with an absence of common sense. Grand  master  ka  21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong oppose per all of above, especially Boricuæddie's comments. -- Ben complain 01:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Respectfully I must oppose per civility issues and per MangoJuice's reasoning above, which expresses my concerns much better than I could have. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong Oppose: Sorry, but that bot is a menace and has been for a long time.  It, and its creator, demonstrate Wikipedia at its very worst: as indiscriminately pounding bureaucrateze without much care for communication, common sense, consensus or real world law.  I am unmoved by the numerous Support voters who state that he's been doing a thankless job.  Above all, the most important virtue in an admin is good judgment.  That Betacommand has not only failed to demonstrate, he'd much rather let a computer program exercise judgment in his stead.  His detractors aren't upset because he's doing a thankless job, rather because he's been abrupt, abrasive and uncommunicative doing it, and I see nothing in Wikipedia policy giving editors a free ride just because they (voluntarily) choose to work for the black gang.  I can't possibly imagine why putting more authority in his hands would be a good idea.  What's next, the XfDClosingBot?    RGTraynor  04:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Very Strong Oppose: Absolutely not. Betacommand has demonstrated very poor judgement in the past and I see no evidence of any change. This user cannot be trusted with administrator rights. He is the antithesis of what a Wikipedia Administrator should be. Xdenizen 06:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty harsh to say, the last sentence there. There are personal feelings involved by the nominee.  Something to consider.   Keegan talk 07:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I rarely participate in RfA's and when I do I consider what I say very carefully. The nominee has opened himself or allowed himself to be opened to the judgment of the community so must be prepared to be criticised. I do not believe my assessment of his candidacy or past performance as an Administrator is harsher than any other that has been offered. Xdenizen 08:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, reluctantly. On the one hand, I have very little respect for the ArbCom as an institution; their recent judgments have been a catalogue of errors, and the assessment of them as a "kangaroo court" is precisely correct. Also, I respect many of the editors who have commented in the Support section, and I agree that Betacommand does essential work as an image-use patroller, one of the most difficult and demanding fields of work on Wikipedia. However, I am still concerned with some of the behaviour that came to light in the arbitration case. Unfortunately, because there is no mechanism for community recall of admins, many admins have a tendency to become less communicative once they pass RfA, and to act as they see fit rather than following the will of the community. Because of this situation, I have to give more weight to Betacommand's behaviour while he was an admin, some of which was quite worrying, than to the good work he's done since. Don't get me wrong; I commend him for his hard work in removing copyvio images, and I hope he will continue to contribute. But I can't support him as an admin. WaltonOne 12:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't trust him with the buttons (or even with the bot). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose After the recent bot incident, I promptly reached his bot user page to prevent the boyt from tagging more fair use templated images, but when I got there, many other complaints were already there. From what I saw, the queries were completely ignored, and I got no replies from him at all. Even without that said, the ArbCom made it clear who he is not sysop material, and that taking sysop away was the best. I stand by that fact, and believe that if he gets resysopped, it would be blatantly overruling ArbCom, and giving power back to a somewhat apathetic user. -- Tommy Boy ♪   ♪  17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are of course very entitled to your opinion. I would just like to correct you when you state that, if this were successful, it would be "blatantly overruling ArbCom". The ArbCom remedy stated "Betacommand's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to this committee." This made it very clear that a subsequent RfA would be quite acceptable. Will (aka Wimt ) 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but by the looks of it, he has not changed since then, and I personally believe he won't change with sysop again. After being desysopped, he should have at least altered his apathetic behavior rather than carry on the same way. But again, everyone is entitled to an opinion. -- Tommy Boy ♪   ♪  23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Little recent participation on article talk pages or in user talk, consequently insufficient evidence for me to decide if past incivility issues have been resolved. Tim Vickers 20:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. There seems to be this tendency to use clear communication as a little strawman to avoid actual user conduct issues. Now, Betacommand did sometimes have problems with clear communication, which was not good, and I'm glad that he recognizes that and intends to change it. But the problem was only partly communication; most of the problem that got him desysopped was that he did things that he shouldn't have. I have yet to see even an admission of any wrongdoing for this, much less an apology. And there really needs to be one. -Amarkov moo! 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, regretfully. At the time of Betacommand's de-sysop, I encouraged him to reapply in the future, and still do.  However, I think that the best way for me to make a judgment in a case like this is to essentially "wipe clean the slate" at the time of the desysop and look at actions from that date forward, as a first step in the process.  The second step is to consider the actions that led to desysop and evaluate whether I believe those actions would be repeated.  In this case, with n as the date of the desysop, n + ~4 months does not give me sufficient data upon which to judge whether someone should be sysop'd.  It would taken an extraordinary case for me to recommend a sysop after only four months of activity, which is essentially what we're being asked to do here.  Based upon that, this request fails the first part of my equation.  I still encourage Betacommand to consider re-applying later.  There is no doubt in my mind that at some point, I will gladly support such a request.  I just think it's too soon.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Philippe. Long history of aggressive use of administrative tools. Controvertial actions need to be taken at times, but I think Betacommand has exercised far too little reservation in highly controvertial procedures and been unresponsive to repeated complaints. I haven't noticed very objectionable actions in the months that have passed, but desysopping wasn't his first serious warning, and while I'm confident that Betacommand wouldn't go on similar rampages, I'm still concerned about his unsatisfactory communication and reluctance to listen to complaints. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">xDanielx T/C 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose this user, but I must, given that there are a large number of support 'votes'. The candidate has been uncivil as recently as May. The problems identified at Request for Arbitration are enormous but not insurmountable. The candidate needs to earn more trust. - Richard Cavell 04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Incivility is bad, of course. But that edit was now more than three months ago, and it was in response to someone randomly declaring that he plagarized the code for his bot. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Matthew.  T Rex  | <font face="Tahoma">talk  05:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Does great work for the project, but the diffs provided by Mathew and others do not show the type of temperament needed by those trusted with the tools. Keep up the good work, though. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— Ocat ecir T 07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose 1. His bot cannot be trusted (e.g. it wrongly deleted two of my fair use images while I was on wikibreak), which I believe says a lot about his bot's owner. 2. His grammar and spelling are particularly poor.  Madman 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * if my bot malfunctioned and mis-tagged an image please let me know, All effort to have users fix the rationales are being done. It notifies all uploaders, and leaves a note on the talk page of any article that is using the image. Im not sure what else can be done via a bot to address these issues. I also would like to note that the bot is not an admin, and it cannot delete anything. βcommand 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. is invalid, the bot doesn't delete anything, learn how the bot works before you use it as a reason to oppose and 2. i've never noticed any particular spelling issue although he does have a tendency to avoid use of capitals (much like this post). 86.137.123.74 15:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh-uh. No free pass on the bot. You can't walk around draped in the glory of doing the necessary dirty work like some wounded mis-understood hero and then walk away from the consequences of the collateral damage being caused. If the work is so important where is the support team? That's not just being facetious - all the folks that think the work is so noble (and for the record I think it is a necessary) should be the ones facilitating the proper function of the bot and helping out the legit users who are being negatively affected. And given that actions speak louder than words, the stupidly aggressive approach and the anti-community spirit that the bot embodies speaks volumes about the programmer's attitude toward other users. He's already got his hands full managing Frankenstein and needs to get that straightened away before trying to re-up as an admin. Wiggy! 23:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per communication and civility issues. I could never support any candidate with an answer as poor as this to Q3. --John 15:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose too much stuff brought up is true. Sorry but I just cant support.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per One Night in Hackney (oppose #20). I was going to stay neutral till I saw your behavior there - removing an acceptably referenced section, twice, in the name of Biographies of living persons, protecting the article, and then failing to provide an adequate explanation for your actions. That said, I'm puzzled by the people who are opposing you just for the work you and your bot do with images, as the issue seems to bear no relation to how you would use admin tools if you were resysopped. Picaroon (t) 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Splash, Mangojuice and Grandmasterka (among others). Would be willing to support at some future point following more article writing contributions and demonstration of more responsive interactions with other editors. Carcharoth 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per pretty much everything above. Wikipediarul e s 2221 02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Poor communication with the community at large when issues have arisen. 17Drew 07:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Oppose Bot tagged my image even though it had a correct fair use rationale, and when I queried this on his/her talk page, my message was deleted and I received no reply??? Sue Wallace 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did reply in a general manner related to many similar questions including yours . I do not delete comments from my talk page. That discussion was moved to my talk page. βcommand 11:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong opposition. This user frequently engages in irresponsible, dishonest behavior.  He typically disregards feedback and stubbornly refuses to cooperate with others.  —David Levy 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I do not disregard feedback, and I do try and work with other users. you might say Wikidemo and I are on the opposite sides of the Non-free issue, and you could say we hate each other, but that does not mean that I wont work with him. In fact, Im currently in the process of a minor re-write of BCBot, so that it will ignore what wikidemo has called "legacy" images. if you want more detail please see WT:NFC. Ive also re-written User:RFC bot no less than 3 times because users have wanted some feature or another. In regard to what I "ignore" are user who make personal attacks, and or disrespectful comments(I can Pull many examples out of my archives). what you may think I ignore I dont, some are comments that are answered elsewhere on the page. (If 5 users create sections asking the exact same question Ill only answer the first) others are, hay there is an error in the bots summary. or something else like that. Ill fix the issue and move on I may or may not leave a comment there as the fix would be noticeable. βcommand 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Commenting on just one point ... since some users seem to look for an answer only under their own question, it might be better to adopt a policy of responding to every good-faith post to your talk page, even if the response is just like "please see answer higher on this page" or "I've adjusted the bot to deal with this issue" or the like. Newyorkbrad 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Viridae Talk 01:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to ignoring people, I've seen you rudely tell editors and groups of editors that you don't care what they think and don't intend to alter your controversial behavior (and I'm referring to reasonable requests from knowledgeable users, not angry complaints from newbies who don't understand why their images were tagged.)  You told me that you deliberately tagged hundreds of images with false information (thereby instructing administrators to delete them prematurely) because it was easier than finding/creating an appropriate template.  That's downright reckless, and you could do far worse with sysop tools.  —David Levy 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Matthew. Too many pervious blocking related issues and arbcom case scares me a bit. The Parsnip! 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as per "The Parsnip!". Scar ian  Talk  22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose communication issues seem to be a common theme throughout the opposes. Recently he asked an adminship candidate to give a reason to oppose his own RfA, though he eventually supported stating sorry for being difficult with my question, I was looking at how you answered not necessarily what you said. as admins often get into hard places. I'm sure there will be editors who approve of pressuring potential admin candidate to see their mettle and examine their suitability. To me however, it seemed machiavellian to ask a question which can only put the editor in a badlight no matter whether he answers it or not. Whether this was intentional or a communication issue I am not sure. I supported his initial RfA as he has and still does some fantastic work, but in conjunction with the above examples and my recent experience I will unfortunately oppose.  Khu  kri  23:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Adminship should be about quality, not quantity, and my experience with this user and his/her bot brings to mind the word "steamroller". My ideal admin does not put disclaimers at the top of their talk page that direct complaints and discourage discussion with big red "warning" symbols. – Outriggr  § 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. User and his/her bot have built a reputation for acting without due consideration, engendering many bad feelings and a lack of trust in the community. Badagnani 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, per Matthew. @pple complain 08:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Never, per David levy. Incivility is bad enough; dishonesty is unforgivable. This user has demonstrated tendencies I never want to see associated with the sysop tools. -- nae'blis 13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Betacommand has been given more than enough chances - I do not believe he is, or ever will be, capable of using the admin buttons responsibly. He is far too sensitive to criticism, he has been shown to be dishonest (per the arbcom case), he is a policy wonk, the image deletion spree was a disaster (he should never be given a delete button), he doesn't understand BLP (see above), he lacks any kind of assumption of good faith and is bitey (look at the multitude of very dubious username blocks he used to issue without any kind of discussion with the new users), he throws tantrums (see the response mentioned above when he was asked to stop autoblocking usernames because his bot - running on his admin account without permission, of course - was so badly written it was making false positives - his response was to spam WP:RFCN with names) and he is rude, discourteous, and uncivil (per countless diffs above). So, that is a no.  Neil   ム  17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Oppose. Sorry, per all of the above and this. →  j acĸrм  ( talk  |   sign  ) 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, give me a break. Matthew was clearly being a real dick there; it's not reasonable to act like Betacommand's lashing out at him on one of the far distant corners of the wiki is so terrible.  Civility is important, but Matthew was asking for it.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care what Matthew did. There is absolutely no excuse for telling another user to "shut the fuck up."  —David Levy 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate to use this as a soapbox... I really wish that standard were applied equally to everyone. -Amarkov moo! 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, his bot makes many mistakes. I don't mean to sound as though everyone's perfect, but it just made 410 mistakes on image tagging. →  j acĸrм  ( talk  |   sign  ) 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a minor error of forgetting to close [ ['s and as soon as it was brought to my attention It was fixed. βcommand 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but per the discussions on your talk page, it seems it's making other mistakes too. →  j acĸrм  ( talk  |   sign  ) 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not making other errors, users had questions about policy. (or did not understand them). βcommand 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Y'know, if I just went out and made four hundred errors in a series of edits, there'd be screaming on AN/I to block me as a maddog. And this has not been the first time this bot has screwed up big.    RGTraynor  20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, major behavioral concerns. Everyking 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, while his bot has done good things for Wikipedia, I can't ignore this edit. The fact that he felt the need to tell someone to "shut the fuck up" is a little over the top, and personally I would be intimited if he were an admin. With that said however, I really do admire his work on Wikipedia and think he is a great editor. -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'd like to see a longer period of good behavior. The whole point of adminship is that you can look away for months, and trust that the admin has been working away quietly without generating any drama. Stan 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Piling on oppose. Betacommand does not have the judgement nor the temperament necessary to be an administrator. Given the difficulty of removing an admin, for someone who has managed to do enough damage to suffer that fate to come back and ask for admin powers again is flat-out insulting to the Wikipedia community. Argyriou (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please avoid making edit summaries like this. Acalamari 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. No matter what you think of an editor, your comments and/or edit summaries should never include profanity. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  03:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose John254 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any reason? Acalamari 01:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any reason why you didn't question OsamaK, Brianherman, Freakofnurture and Voltron about their explanation-free support votes? —David Levy 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Solidly oppose this nom as the candidate does not have nearly enough contributions to the article namespace, plenty of deletions and removals, but the bot he runs seems to cause more problems than it's worth: If I have not ever heard of you, but have seen your bot 'getting in trouble' frequently/chronically enough that I feel I know your bot 'in a bad way' that seems to me to be a bad sign.  Also I generally feel that admins should be generally beyond reproach insofar as their behavior goes, but BC seems to be reproached pretty often.  We may need more admins, but we don't need any that are just here for the extra buttons.  Betacommand should try his hand at starting a new article, and should add content to existing articles, and maybe develop a pet project (although if the bot was more presentable, I'd consider that a 'project').  Solid editors with thousands of stable additions to the article namespace, courteous behaviour, general helpfulness, and an ability to work with any collaborators on any subject... that's the kind of editors I want as admins. Sorry, but get some experience with writing stable prose that meets consensus, POV, and all other policies... and I mean a LOT of that, and I would vote for you, with a minor attitude adjustment to bring you up to the 'beyond reproach' level. User:Pedant 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - sorry but civil discussion ranks #1 in my list of admin criteria. The Rambling Man 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - uncivility and also due to the way too numerous replies by supporters to oppose votes. a RFA should not have every oppose vote argued by a few friends of the nominated  Lost Kiwi (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason that people respond to supports/opposes is because Request for adminship is a discussion, not a vote. I should also note that not everyone who has responded to opposers has been a supporter. Acalamari 20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry Beta, but I don't believe you have the level of community support required for administrators. — M ETS 501 (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Although skilled and respected, I am wary about resysopping Betacommand because of said reasons from the opposing side. However, it's almost impossible to escape unscathed when working in the hell of images and fair use, and I respect that.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Two years of trouble and general madness 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral-You're a great editor, your bot is probably one of the best, if not the best out there. You have to put up with a lot of the people illiterate on image policy, even with the big stop sign on your page. I'm just worried about the civilty. You're block log shows a lot. And a lot of times admins are the face of Wikipedia (ie. a newbie comes to your talk page, you delete a page and someone disagrees). We need someone who will keep cool. If you can go a few more months without being blocked/not losing your cool a lot, I will support right away. I trust you as a sysop, and trusted you as one, but I don't know how you'll communicate with the users that come flocking to your talk page complaining. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * R, Betacommand often deals with people running across his talk page complaining about his bot, fair use policy, ect. I'd go mad if I had to put up with the crap Betacommand goes through daily, and the little thanks he gets for his hard work. <font color="#777">~  Wi ki  her mit  22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Adminship is absolutely not about rewarding people for their work. We have barnstars and whatnot for that.  RFA should be about one thing- how well the candidate will use the admin tools.  I sincerely hope you're not looking to hang out adminship like it's a shiny trophy. Friday (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that? I simply said Betacommand does a lot of hard work that no one wants to do without any thanks. I never said we should reward BC by sysopping him. Admin work is usually thankless, and betacommand is well aware of this. <font color="#777">~  Wi ki  her mit  22:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - I will not bring up the arb-com case because it has been brought up so much already. You certainly have done some good work, but your communication style stinks. Your rude comments that I have seen in several situations apalls me and needs to be changed. I'm sorry to say that I don't feel giving you the tools back would be a wise move. Sorry, but neutral. --<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="Black">Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor ( tαlk ) 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Betacommand does a lot of good work, but I read the ArbCom case at the time, and if I recall correctly, he was given at least two or three warnings to stop deleting images with the bot before he was desysopped. Those circumstances make it difficult for me to support giving the delete button back to Betacommand, even though he has the credentials. Shalom Hello 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral you do very fine work here, but your manner of discourse is lacking at times. -- Samir 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - it's still the poor communication skills that are my main concern. I don't have any doubts about his good intentions. Deb 07:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Perhaps "ambivalent" would be a better word: Betacommand and his bot do a difficult, unpleasant (for BC and for the users who don't adhere to the non-free content policy) but necessary job.  I see a lot of respected editors in support above, and also quite a few in opposition. For me, what it boils down to is that Betacommand has lost the trust of the community, and not yet regained it fully.  In addition, I am not certain that, if his past were selectively erased, and this were viewed as a first RfA, it would pass: civility issues and lack of mainspace content additions are often enough to kill off an RfA.  I would not wish to stop him from tagging, flagging and otherwise cataloguing copyright-infringing images, but that does not require the sysop bit.  Thus, my my mealy-mouthed abstention. — mholland (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Personally I've always had great interaction with Betacommand, he always promptly helped me when I requested assistance. Always friendly. I suspect he's a great guy and I would like to support, but unfortunately I cannot turn a blind eye to the concerns raised by the opposers. So I'm neutral this time. Hús  ö  nd  03:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Honestly, I would love to support. Betacommand has a strong commitment to the project and is a hard worker;his bot is doing much needed dirty work, though having the bot be stable would be nice ;) .  Unfortunately, his last round at trying to admin tools went completely sideways -- I think that more time is needed to show those problems are behind him and that he can be trusted to use the tools wisely and with good communication. Shell babelfish 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral Me too. I'm really torn. Dfrg.msc 09:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral I haven't had anything besides good interaction with Betacommand but comments made in the oppose section concern me. Computerjoe 's talk 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral - Jeez, I've gone to vote six or seven times and each time felt I couldn't support or oppose. Betacommand works hard, but has known civility and communication issues, and it hasn't been demonstrated these are resolved. Can we trust Betacommand with admin tools?  I have no goddamn idea.  Would making Betacommand an admin be good for Wikipedia?  I have no goddamn idea.  Doesn't seem that he has the trust of the community though.  I'm not sure whether he (she?) has mine. Wily D  16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral leaning to Support The issues that have been brought up above concern me, but this user has my trust. Truth be told, I don't know what to do... :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CommnetWhen confused, stay netural!  Pat <sup style="color:#000000;">Politics rule!  00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't do neutral as a rule, but another oppose, which I'm leaning toward, would just be piling on at this stage. I would hope at some future time I could support, but I just can't at this time, per many concerns detailed by others above. Jonathunder 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral -- I've have had some positive recent interactions with this editor where he demonstrated to myself that he can communicate effectively. He took my concerns into consideration and made appropriate changes to his bots functions at my request however past concerns such as the invalid mass blocking of new user accounts for minor username breaches leads me believe his judgement may not be 100% in line with what we come to expect in an administrator. I'd be happy to support some time down the track should the controversies subside. His hard work in messy areas of the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. - Longhair\talk 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral – leaning oppose ... what can I say? Every time I've came across Betacommand, it's been a bad experience. You could put it down to sheer bad luck, but I think the 87 opposes to this request speaks more than I ever could. There are glimmers of hope, in his work at Requests for Approvals over at BAG, but there really is a long way to go, and in all reality the sysop tools are something I wouldn't feel safe watching you with. Sorry, the civility concerns, as well as the RfArb really do speak for themselves, and the only think that is stopping me voting against this request is Beta's strong oppose to my RfB would make such an action on by behalf look like a tit-for-tat vote. Otherwise, definite no. Anthøny   ん  21:06, 13 September 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.