4347:, 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 Knowledge. 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.
1798:
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 Knowledge. 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,
3744:- 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,
4224:. 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 Knowledge, and doing so with an absence of common sense.
628:
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, --
5661:. 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. —
856:. 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.
5486:-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 Knowledge (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. --
1649:- 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
5822:-- 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. -
946:: 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 Knowledge 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.—
1511:
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.
4459:. 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. -
1635:
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. -
5745:- 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 Knowledge? 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.
4979:. 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
4285:. 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 Knowledge policy giving editors a free ride just because they (voluntarily) choose to work for the black gang. I can't possibly imagine why putting
3490:" 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
1310:- 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. --
2652:
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.
107:. 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 Knowledge.
3993:, 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
1291:, 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.
648:
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! --
4134:. 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.
4983:(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
5601:- 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. --
2332:). 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
3477:
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. --
1250:- 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.
1498:. 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.
196:. 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
3715:. 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.
1205:. 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.
914:- 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.
638:
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.
3211:. 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
2988:
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.
3557:, 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.
3126:..We are allowed to have rude Editors on Knowledge 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 Knowledge be an Admin, then someone who wastes their time Critcising Possible Admin candidates..--
3732:. 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. --
5366:
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
1322:. 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.
2895:
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
5371:
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.
4476:, 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,
5700:
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
5365:
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
4846:
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
4811:
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
4505:
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
4371:
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
3703:
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.
3544:
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.
2712:
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
2003:
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,
1581:
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
1392:
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
627:
Hmm, I'm unsure whether to support sysoping
Betacommand's account. He has done a tremendous amount of work (some of it controversial) on Knowledge. I appreciate that. I have noticed, as have other editors, however, that his communication with others is poor. Recently on a noticeboard he responded
578:
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
247:
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
170:
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
5624:
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
5370:
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
5252:. 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 Knowledge community.
4702:, 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.
4620:
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
4488:
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
4199:
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
4079:
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
3997:
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
3355:
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
3219:
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
2894:
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
2479:
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
1634:
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
1551:
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
647:
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
637:
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
351:
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
5843:
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
4647:
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
4395:
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
3476:
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
2422:
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
2145:
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.
1797:
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
751:
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.
4821:
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
3319:
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
1605:
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,
1568:
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
1546:
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
1350:
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
330:
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
5676:
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
4802:
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
3467:
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 Knowledge 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
3399:
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
2969:
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
1686:
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
4642:
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
4280:
Sorry, but that bot is a menace and has been for a long time. It, and its creator, demonstrate Knowledge 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
4186:
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
3702:
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
2987:
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
1864:
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
5835:– 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
1510:
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
378:
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
3964:- 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.
3771:
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
3194:
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
865:
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
4903:
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
4416:
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.
2470:
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
3898:
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
2651:
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
4913:. 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. –
96:
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
4187:
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.
1010:
Betacommand cops a ridiculous amount of flak for no good reasons from the cruft-adoring, fair-use-loving fanboy brigade for trying to keep Knowledge clean of junk that fundamentally contradicts our basic mission. Under such circumstances of intense pressure, I can forgive the odd slip.
1266:. 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. --
4330:
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.
4130:, 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
3689:
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
4812:
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.
1416:
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
1001:: 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.--
2970:
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
4506:
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. —
3659:
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.
2929:
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.
4372:
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.
1654:
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?
248:
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.
4851:
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.
811:
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 -
5213:. 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 Knowledge and think he is a great editor. --
5041:
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.
2836:. While Bcommand has made some good contributions that shape Knowledge, 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
1351:
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.
4632:
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).
5549:
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.
2349:
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.
187:
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
5455:. 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.
3998:
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
5515:
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.
3468:
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
5562:
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.
746:
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
1340:
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.
4305:
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 Knowledge Administrator should be.
3604:. 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
1117:
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
3369:
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.
901:
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.
3050:(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.
1879:- 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.
879:
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.
851:
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,
1582:
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.
3356:
usage policies we have on Knowledge. 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.
4904:
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.
4002:
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.
3429:... 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. --
1087:
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
4717:
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.
3345:. 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
2899:
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.
1393:
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.
4111:
2445:, 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. --
4033:. 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
2865:- 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.
2747:
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,
4608:
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.
3756:
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.
1955:
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.
1161:
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.
2608:
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.
5410:
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.
5238:
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.
3985:
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
4126:
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
4489:
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. -
3215:
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
4037:), 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".
2810:
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,
2480:
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,
4899:
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
2427:
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.)
3915:
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.
1687:
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. ➪
3927:
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.
4586:
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.
3140:
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
3320:
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.
3103:
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.
3545:
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.
4200:
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
2635:
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.
5876:
406:
60:
157:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
5395:- 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
4971:
2564:
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.
1622:
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.
3220:
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.
291:
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)
209:
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?
4961:, 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. --
4767:
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???
4698:
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
4447:
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.
493:
2744:
2424:
487:
422:
3365:
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
1467:
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 ~
2173:- 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. --
1193:
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. —
5894:
3872:
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.
3246:
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.
417:
2328:). He also runs one of the most (if not the only) defective bots on Knowledge which is constantly being discussed/blocked due to an endless amount of bugs (
463:
3400:
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.
4932:. 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.
4131:
219:
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.
4793:
This user frequently engages in irresponsible, dishonest behavior. He typically disregards feedback and stubbornly refuses to cooperate with others. —
3273:
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?
5165:
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.
3438:
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.
2235:
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. --
4530:
as recently as May. The problems identified at Request for Arbitration are enormous but not insurmountable. The candidate needs to earn more trust. -
4480:. 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
2667:
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
450:
5085:
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. →
4643:
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
4114:
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.
4901:
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.
4699:
3144:. 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.
2515:
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.
2087:
3306:
runs for adminship, that would probably be a more appropriate time to oppose based on the technical specifications, merits, and, deficiencies of
4264:
Respectfully I must oppose per civility issues and per MangoJuice's reasoning above, which expresses my concerns much better than I could have.
282:
1231:
I definitely believe that Knowledge will benefit from having Betacommand resysnopped. He has done very much good work for the encyclopedia.
5474:
2300:— 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
2045:
1707:
Betacommand actions could be described as controversial but i personally consider them to be for the benefit of Knowledge in general. --
457:
4235:
3939:
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.
2840:(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. —
1421:
to put him on an administrative patrol trial? I know that this is currently occurring with another administrator at this point in time.
3572:. 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. -
2442:- 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
237:
Please explain what you would do differently if you were resysopped, as compared with during your earlier service as an administrator.
5701:
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.
4067:
I have no way to know that I could trust this user again with the tools, per their unnecessary, irrational blocks of other users. --
3157:
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.
1980:, the community needs more administrators who are willing to do what's right, even if it's not popular. Betacommand is one of those.
4315:
That's pretty harsh to say, the last sentence there. There are personal feelings involved by the nominee. Something to consider.
985:
506:
443:
86:
5762:
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... :-)
3772:
resysopping was rejected is a little worrying. I think that Betacommand is a good editor who should not be an admin at this time.
3014:. 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
402:
4007:
1547:
did is tantamount to surrendering the voice of the community in deference to the voice of one committee. That is most certainly
30:
17:
2152:
1381:
723:
1542:. That the arbcom declined to re-sysop him is irrelevant to this discussion. Too many people are viewing this inaction as a
4514:
3669:
3617:
3605:
1365:- all the problems of the arbcom thing have been addressed as far as I can tell. He has learned how to communicate correctly.
990:
4526:- I'm sorry to oppose this user, but I must, given that there are a large number of support 'votes'. The candidate has been
1137:
yes. Betacommand has learned from his past mistakes and I've seen him work towards a productive solution at difficult times
5281:
Indeed. No matter what you think of an editor, your comments and/or edit summaries should never include profanity. Cheers,
3861:
3782:
2359:
It's Bcommand that requests for adminship, not Matthew. And once BC wants to be resysoped, he must stop "snap" like that.
5649:- it's still the poor communication skills that are my main concern. I don't have any doubts about his good intentions.
4742:
4176:
3973:
3880:
3378:
3254:
1846:
1774:
1764:
1754:
565:
I was under the impression that he required arbcom approval before he could become an admin again. i guess i was wrong?
5609:
5728:
I haven't had anything besides good interaction with Betacommand but comments made in the oppose section concern me.
4648:
got his hands full managing Frankenstein and needs to get that straightened away before trying to re-up as an admin.
2013:
Nobody's perfect, but he's doing a good job overall and the encyclopedia would benefit from giving him the mop back.
1023:. He knows how to use the tools, he has the experience, he knows fair use policy, and now everyone's watching him. --
979:- Lesson learned. He does huge amounts of necessary, thankless work, and the tools will prove a great advantage. --
352:
get more available time, after the NFCC mess is sorted out, Im going to be getting more involved in article writing.
3989:
to the idea of a resysopping. However, Betacommandbot has been a consistent problem (as recently as yesterday: see
2114:
because he does what is right, even though it is hard and unappreciated work, and rewarded with little but abuse.
101:. He has also written and helped many other wikipedians with bots. BC is extremely knowledgeable in fair use policy
4664:
per communication and civility issues. I could never support any candidate with an answer as poor as this to Q3. --
4034:
3501:
2592:
2452:
2242:
3803:
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,
694:
I'm not so sure about that... he asked arbcom directly if he could have his adminship back, and that didn't work.
5489:
3836:
3662:
3610:
730:? This sort of language and behavior, when used as the foundation of an RfA, does not benefit the candidate. —
1682:. Also, as an aside to some of the opposers, I want to point out that just because Arbcom refused to preform a
1138:
505:
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
379:
uploaded for that article I left it. your "edit war" was just the simple removal of the use of a deleted image.
5463:
4571:
3858:
3573:
2281:
2049:
980:
372:
been edit warring without giving reasons, please tell me why you should be trusted with the rollback function?
193:
2951:
This RfA is for Betacommand, not his bot. His bot's shortcomings are not going to worsen if he is promoted. --
5071:
As much as I hate to use this as a soapbox... I really wish that standard were applied equally to everyone. -
1062:- What can i say, he deserves it. He is very under-appreciated, (come-on give him credit for his hard work).
5806:, which I'm leaning toward, would just be piling on at this stage. I would hope at some future time I could
5788:
5500:
5059:
4739:
4731:
4230:
3086:
3029:
2912:
2852:
1931:
1237:
1221:
1171:
1119:
1093:
915:
5861:
5827:
5814:
5791:
5773:
5754:
5737:
5720:
5705:
5695:
5668:
5653:
5641:
5629:
5616:
5587:
5557:
5540:
5510:
5478:
5440:
5415:
5405:
5387:
5375:
5349:
5324:
5315:
5300:
5276:
5263:
5243:
5230:
5201:
5173:
5156:
5147:
5111:
5080:
5066:
5054:
5036:
4998:
4953:
4936:
4924:
4905:
4891:
4872:
4856:
4839:
4826:
4816:
4803:
BCBot, so that it will ignore what wikidemo has called "legacy" images. if you want more detail please see
4797:
4783:
4771:
4759:
4747:
4722:
4709:
4690:
4668:
4652:
4637:
4625:
4613:
4600:
4578:
4552:
4534:
4518:
4497:
4468:
4451:
4435:
4411:
4390:
4363:
4351:
4335:
4321:
4310:
4297:
4272:
4256:
4240:
4216:
4191:
4178:
4162:
4150:
4138:
4118:
4102:
4086:
4071:
4059:
4043:
4023:
4014:
3977:
3956:
3931:
3919:
3907:
3884:
3867:
3840:
3790:
3776:
3763:
3748:
3736:
3724:
3707:
3694:
3677:
3654:
3625:
3576:
3564:
3549:
3536:
3512:
3481:
3462:
3433:
3418:
3404:
3382:
3360:
3326:
3314:
3297:
3258:
3228:
3203:
3172:
3152:
3135:
3118:
3098:
3089:
3074:
3045:
3032:
2992:
2982:
2964:
2946:
2934:
2917:
2889:
2857:
2821:
2805:
2776:
2759:
2720:
2707:
2678:
2656:
2642:
2624:
2603:
2568:
2559:
2539:
2530:
2499:
2463:
2434:
2409:
2400:
2377:
2368:
2354:
2340:
2284:
2272:
2253:
2230:
2216:
2197:
2179:
2165:
2157:
2137:
2121:
2106:
2094:
2064:
2055:
2037:
2008:
1994:
1972:
1960:
1947:
1934:
1916:
1908:
per Alison. He does work that is normally hated by other wikipedians; therefore making our tasks easier! --
1900:
1885:
1871:
1856:
1832:
1817:
1789:
1778:
1739:
1718:
1699:
1674:
1662:
1641:
1626:
1610:
1593:
1576:
1563:
1534:
1515:
1502:
1490:
1474:
1458:
1443:
1408:
1355:
1345:
1332:
1314:
1302:
1279:
1258:
1242:
1223:
1217:
unreservedly. I can think of few people who have done more to uphold the core mission of our encyclopedia.
1209:
1197:
1185:
1176:
1153:
1127:
1101:
1079:
1054:
1036:
1015:
1005:
993:
971:
959:
938:
906:
889:
874:
860:
846:
831:
795:
756:
739:
711:
689:
652:
642:
632:
614:
583:
569:
552:
523:
383:
356:
335:
298:
272:
252:
143:
131:
5769:
5603:
5571:
5524:
5140:
5104:
5029:
3638:
3446:
3281:
3058:
2873:
2789:
2691:
2671:
the tools. Why on earth would we ignore relevant information when making an important decision like this?
1659:
779:
673:
598:
536:
115:
2978:
one may ask? Well, a bot should not be a tool to boost ones ego; it should be a tool for the community.
5732:
5684:
5384:
5298:
5153:
4919:
4813:
4780:
4634:
4622:
4250:
3401:
3131:
3095:
2989:
2765:
this should not be taken to be a negative review of Betacommand's post-RfArb work, which has been good.
2497:
2406:
2226:
2102:- works hard at a tough job that needs to be done; I trust him to use the tools to benefit the project.
1943:
1869:
1815:
1218:
1075:
639:
580:
566:
520:
437:
380:
353:
332:
249:
140:
80:
5875:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
4869:
4396:
by appeal to this committee." This made it very clear that a subsequent RfA would be quite acceptable.
3850:
3496:
3478:
3430:
2587:
2447:
2237:
2130:
5425:
Sorry Beta, but I don't believe you have the level of community support required for administrators. —
1588:
1558:
4987:
with names) and he is rude, discourteous, and uncivil (per countless diffs above). So, that is a no.
3824:
3781:
Strangly, I agree with Krator. Sorry mate, but that pushed me over the line in to oppose territory.
2781:
Then I see no reason to oppose. If his post arbcom issues are answered, their should be no concerns.
2405:
So you're saying that he has poor grammar but at the same time you want him to write articles? Haha.
1926:
1369:
649:
629:
3393:
2960:
1045:
1032:
5504:
5458:
5338:
5223:
4967:
4914:
4563:
4427:
4382:
3800:
3719:
3704:
3307:
3303:
2639:
2278:
2150:
2118:
2081:
1607:
1377:
1311:
1067:
1052:
98:
4171:
5783:
5717:
5665:
5626:
5403:
5259:
5043:
4804:
4706:
4597:
4531:
4494:
4281:
state that he's been doing a thankless job. Above all, the most important virtue in an admin is
4269:
4225:
4099:
3990:
3081:
3024:
2258:
I'd like to see you try, considering the fact that there are only 1,314 administrators around...
2014:
1829:
1715:
1688:
1639:
1623:
1512:
1352:
1232:
1163:
1149:
5152:
It was not making other errors, users had questions about policy. (or did not understand them).
2942:. Far too controversial. Just yesterday his bot "ran amuck" again. The user hasn't changed. ---
4188:
1991:
1653:
of various bitching and moaning from people who got their favorite <insert TV show name: -->
192:
that Messedrocker now runs. As for what BetacommandBot does: BCBot moves images to commons per
5763:
5702:
5435:
5121:
Indeed, but per the discussions on your talk page, it seems it's making other mistakes too. →
5076:
4889:
4835:
4684:
4548:
4464:
4360:
4174:
4039:
3608:
shows. Totally appalling judgement, and a blatant refusal to admit to or discuss his mistake.
3534:
3199:
3167:
3148:
3113:
2816:
2771:
2754:
2619:
2554:
2525:
2103:
2075:
1897:
1671:
1656:
1273:
1002:
953:
885:
197:
4208:. Ironically, I might not have even noticed this RfA if not for the bot's most recent bug of
866:
recovered in the eyes of the committee itself is considerably more difficult (I would hope).
5853:
5811:
5729:
5689:
5554:
5334:
5283:
5134:
5098:
5023:
4823:
4768:
3969:
3877:
3808:
3804:
3733:
3415:
3375:
3251:
3225:
3128:
2717:
2675:
2574:
2482:
2431:
2301:
2223:
1939:
1851:
1800:
1786:
1771:
1761:
1751:
1573:
1251:
1206:
1072:
871:
828:
735:
433:
398:
227:
93:
76:
5749:
5346:
5240:
5063:
4949:
4853:
4794:
4719:
4610:
4448:
4348:
4068:
4004:
3815:
3759:
3546:
3349:
3339:
3267:
3240:
2418:
The only relevant question is, how will he use the admin tools? RFA is tricky because we
2364:
2269:
1735:
1468:
1452:
753:
216:
4779:. I do not delete comments from my talk page. That discussion was moved to my talk page.
2544:
Thanks for your opinion Nick, but yes they can, in this case. I agree with them totally.
1463:
OK, seriously - I find him to be reliable, trusted, knowledgeable and someone who does a
4963:
4868:
per Matthew. Too many pervious blocking related issues and arbcom case scares me a bit.
3414:- While this editor does a lot of very valuable work, the civility issues concern me. --
3079:
But the rude comment to Matthew is not acceptable. That is not how an admin should act.
5412:
5321:
5273:
5214:
5198:
5166:
4993:
4984:
4980:
4933:
4539:
Incivility is bad, of course. But that edit was now more than three months ago, and it
4422:
4397:
4377:
4290:
4205:
4201:
3949:
3745:
3716:
3506:
3042:
2979:
2956:
2931:
2837:
2636:
2597:
2457:
2247:
2147:
2115:
1969:
1909:
1880:
1394:
1373:
1323:
1028:
857:
843:
704:
295:
269:
262:
1747:--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|
1552:
voice, too. As far as the question at hand, my answer is yes, I can trust this user.
5888:
5836:
5823:
5714:
5662:
5396:
5255:
4734:
4703:
4621:
also would like to note that the bot is not an admin, and it cannot delete anything.
4589:
4508:
4490:
4332:
4307:
4265:
3832:
3216:
3195:
committee's opinion that they can't trust him with the tools and you have my oppose.
3141:
2975:
2971:
2221:
Can you name me one reliable and trustworthy administrator? ..(I don't think so) ..--
2213:
2190:
2005:
1957:
1866:
1826:
1708:
1636:
1530:
1418:
1295:
1182:
1142:
1063:
1012:
345:
Could you please show me an example of article development you have participated in?
321:
4543:
in response to someone randomly declaring that he plagarized the code for his bot. -
665:
I think it's fairly clear that BC has solved all of the problems ArbCom has stated.
5427:
5342:
5312:
5072:
5062:. There is absolutely no excuse for telling another user to "shut the fuck up." —
4881:
4832:
4808:
4677:
4544:
4460:
4213:
4135:
4055:
4020:
3558:
3527:
3196:
3159:
3145:
3105:
2943:
2811:
2766:
2749:
2611:
2546:
2517:
2337:
2162:
2061:
1985:
1894:
1525:
1424:
1268:
947:
881:
804:
310:
189:
66:
4776:
I did reply in a general manner related to many similar questions including yours
3856:
compliant, but BCbot IS under his control. It's still him who's making the call.
2511:
per Matthew, regarding the communitive skills, and I think you make enough errors
2471:
supporting him here. RfA is great because it's controlled by the consensus of the
5637:
you do very fine work here, but your manner of discourse is lacking at times. --
4146:
per all the above. I could add more details, but it's just be rubbing extra salt.
171:
control. (Let me take a moment and thank those unnamed user who do the crap jobs)
5679:
5551:
5372:
5330:
5122:
5086:
5011:
4756:
4649:
4316:
4159:
4147:
4081:
3994:
3965:
3928:
3901:
3873:
3796:
3691:
3589:
3371:
3321:
3247:
3221:
3041:, and regarding the block log for the bot see ST47's response to RockMFR above.
3018:. This came to me upon further review. The arbcom just 2 days ago had a vote to
2908:
2848:
2714:
2672:
2428:
2373:
That diff was also from almost 4 months ago... Do we have anything more recent?
1841:
1768:
1758:
1748:
1583:
1570:
1553:
1486:
867:
813:
732:
4289:
authority in his hands would be a good idea. What's next, the XfDClosingBot?
3022:. It failed. That also says the arbcom does not have faith in you yet. Sorry.
2187:- Thanks for addressing my recent concerns with BetacommandBot so quickly. --
967:: I think he has learned his lesson about running bots with a sysop flag :) --
722:
Would the nominator care to clarify the factual basis for his opinion that the
5746:
5638:
4945:
4051:. While the work with images is important, I must oppose as per the Arb Com @
3916:
2360:
2259:
1606:
most of which actually seem to stem from his communicative style in some way.
1342:
5869:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
5844:
an action on by behalf look like a tit-for-tat vote. Otherwise, definite no.
5810:, but I just can't at this time, per many concerns detailed by others above.
2683:
Simply because you agree with the kangaroo court doesn't mean they're right.
1092:
but my hope is that the good this nom does will outweigh the harm he caused.
4988:
4665:
4403:
3941:
3773:
3357:
2952:
2653:
2565:
2536:
2072:. Does a lot of necessary work around here. Who will pick up the slack? --
1400:
1024:
968:
903:
696:
1481:
Aye. In case of accident, we'll behead you again as needed, I am sure. --
268:
Regardless of your answer, I will remain strongly in support of this RfA.
5846:
5650:
4755:
Poor communication with the community at large when issues have arisen.
4115:
3828:
3311:
2374:
2351:
1499:
3302:
We're discussing adminship for the user, Krator, not the user's bot. If
4210:
incorrectly tagging fair-use images which had valid fair-use rationales
1066:
proves my point..He has had his bad days but his contribution and his
5879:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
5494:
5383:- sorry but civil discussion ranks #1 in my list of admin criteria.
2903:
2843:
2713:
drama-causing thing that can go wrong. We don't need more of this.
2535:
On present form, the Arbitrators judgement simply cannot be trusted.
2174:
1483:
3526:, per the civility issues above, and my own observation/experience.
2388:
So speculation and bad grammar, eh? Well, I can't argue with you on
1044:
Betacommand was a great admin in the past...I miss him as an admin.
5209:, while his bot has done good things for Knowledge, I can't ignore
4676:
too much stuff brought up is true. Sorry but I just cant support.
3594:
those sources are not reliable and are anti-adams POV/slander sites
2863:"I do not trust this user, mostly because of his controversial bot"
2004:
as it's pretty unlikely he'll get the bit back this time around. --
4326:
I rarely participate in RfA's and when I do I consider what I say
2585:" I don't think we can "disregard" their decisions at our will. --
1109:
I do not feel it is germaine to bring up offenses from before the
104:
and has helped shaped wikipedia's non free content policy as well
2579:
Arbitration Committee is a group of users that exists to impose
808:
69:
3389:
I would like to respond to Krator, I ask why should the bot be
1569:
presented in the case are objective and speak for themselves.
3263:
That's completely stupid Krator. Whether or not a bot follows
4359:
I don't trust him with the buttons (or even with the bot). ˉˉ
807:. Seriously, working CSD issues, bot or not, is a dirty job.
138:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1910:
4110:, as the response from some of the members of AbCom on the
1840:
All my interactions with Beta have been nothing but good.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
2320:
Betacommand also has poor communicative skills (such as
181:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
5269:
5210:
5007:
4777:
4527:
4248:
per all of above, especially Boricuæddie's comments. --
4209:
4052:
3601:
3600:. This was completely false, as I debunked those claim
3597:
3593:
3585:
3472:
links to MySpace, Google groups, etc. will be bad, but
3427:
3019:
3015:
3011:
3007:
2663:
You're saying to ignore the arbitration case? You have
2443:
2423:
my comment comment here; the original follows: I think
2346:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2060:
Support. I don't believe he would abuse admin tools. –
1288:
842:
I don't believe he'll misuse or abuse the tools again.
481:
475:
469:
369:
105:
102:
5361:
this nom as the candidate does not have nearly enough
1451:
To stop him badgering the rest of us to do his work ~
4847:
why their images were tagged.) You told me that you
3488:
Writing articles has little to do with being a sysop.
3799:
by myself, and, another user, you should know, that
1070:'s contribution has been Admirable..Best of Luck..--
215:
yes, I am regularly subject to personal attacks and
1046:
3335:It's actually inappropriate for his bot to follow
1968:for many of the reasons given by others above.. --
5625:Betacommand, even though he has the credentials.
3807:is, however, I can't say for sure, wether or not
3094:Oh please. Matthew was accusing him of stealing.
2129:He does do a lot dirty work and gets no credit.--
579:with it calmly and works to resolve the issues.
324:and when do you believe it should be exercised?
164:What admin work do you intend to take part in?
5345:about their explanation-free support votes? —
2745:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand
2425:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand
1670:Very trusworthy editor, worthy of adminship --
1287:Despite comments linked by the opposers like
8:
5116:It was a minor error of forgetting to close
2277:lolz, he probably didn't mean it literally.
4822:bot to deal with this issue" or the like.
4080:do the work that needs cleaned up after.
1296:
3630:Those edits were nearly four months ago!
5475:Two years of trouble and general madness
4700:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
415:
283:Category: Administrators open to recall
281:Would you consider putting yourself in
4170:per Sarah, too soon after desyropping
3899:considering the details in the case.
3020:give back admin powers to Betacommand
2832:I am sorry but I am going to have to
7:
5602:
5161:Y'know, if I just went out and made
3940:
695:
423:Requests for adminship/Betacommand 2
5895:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
5329:Any reason why you didn't question
5268:Please avoid making edit summaries
414:
5006:. Sorry, per all of the above and
4730:Per pretty much everything above.
2212:Unreliable and cannot be trusted.
2188:
1865:Betacommand's behavior changed.--
418:Requests for adminship/Betacommand
24:
507:Special:Contributions/Betacommand
2347:You aren't so innocent yourself.
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1233:
5862:21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5828:15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5815:04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5792:00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5774:22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5755:16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5441:23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5416:20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5406:20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5388:17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5376:09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5350:05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5325:01:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5316:01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5301:03:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5277:19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5264:19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5244:19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5231:02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5202:19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5174:20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5157:19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5148:19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5112:19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5081:23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5067:20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5055:20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5037:19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4999:17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4972:13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4954:08:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4937:04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4925:00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4906:23:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4892:22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4873:21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4857:21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4840:01:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4827:21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4817:21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4798:18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4784:11:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4772:09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4760:07:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4748:02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4478:as a first step in the process
4206:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy
3846:I'm not saying he wouldn't be
2378:21:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2369:08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2355:00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2285:03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2198:02:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2180:23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2166:06:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2158:03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2138:22:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2122:18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2107:18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2095:16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2065:15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2056:14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2038:08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2009:06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1825:per Pascal Tesson and Alison.
1423:
1292:
405:. For the edit count, see the
331:method with little use of it.
294:A fine answer to my question.
1:
5854:
5781:When confused, stay netural!
5738:19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
5721:09:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
5706:21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
5696:03:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
5669:17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
5654:07:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
5642:06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
5630:00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
5617:23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5604:
5588:22:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5558:22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5541:22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5511:22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5479:21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5197:, major behavioral concerns.
5127:
5091:
5060:I don't care what Matthew did
5016:
4723:22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4710:20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4691:19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4669:15:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4653:23:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4638:15:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4626:23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4614:14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4601:07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4579:05:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4572:
4553:04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4535:04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4519:03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4498:23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4469:21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4452:20:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4436:23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4412:20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4391:17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4364:12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4352:12:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4336:08:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4322:07:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4311:06:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4298:04:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4273:03:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4257:01:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4241:21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4217:21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4192:21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4179:21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4163:20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4151:20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4139:20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4119:20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4103:20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4087:19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4072:18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4060:17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4044:17:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4024:20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4015:15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3978:14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3957:14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3932:14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3920:13:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3908:10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3885:22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3868:07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3841:18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3791:07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3777:07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3764:06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3749:06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3737:06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3725:06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3708:05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3695:05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3678:01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3655:01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3626:00:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3577:00:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3565:23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3550:23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3537:23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3513:01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3482:23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3463:23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3434:23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3419:23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3405:23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3383:22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3361:14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3327:19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3315:18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3298:23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3259:23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3229:23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3204:22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3173:12:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3153:11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3136:11:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3119:12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3099:23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3090:22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3075:22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3046:22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3033:22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2993:16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2983:18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2965:22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2947:22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2935:22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2918:21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2890:21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2858:21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2822:21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2806:21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2777:21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2760:21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2721:23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2708:23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2679:22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2657:22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2643:22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2625:22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2604:22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2573:Forgive me if I'm wrong, but
2569:21:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2560:21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2540:21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2531:21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2500:15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2464:21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2435:22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2410:23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2401:23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2341:21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2273:08:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2254:02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2231:02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2217:21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1995:19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1973:15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1961:10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1948:01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1935:00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1917:23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1901:23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1886:20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1872:19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1857:22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1833:20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1818:19:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1790:19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1779:19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1740:17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1719:17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1700:17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1675:16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1663:16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1642:15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1627:15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1616:Extreme supper strong support
1611:15:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1594:17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1577:17:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1564:15:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1535:07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1523:per all the above reasons. --
1516:04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1503:04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1496:Very very very strong support
1491:03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1475:03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1459:03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1444:01:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1409:01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1356:20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1346:01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1333:01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1315:01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1303:01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1280:00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1259:00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1243:23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1224:23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1210:23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1198:23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1186:23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1177:22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1154:22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1128:23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1102:22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1080:22:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1055:22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1037:22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1016:21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1006:21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
994:21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
972:21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
960:21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
939:21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
907:21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
890:22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
875:23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
861:21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
847:21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
832:21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
796:20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
757:19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
740:15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
712:14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
690:01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
653:03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
643:01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
633:01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
615:23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
584:23:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
570:23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
553:23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
524:23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
384:00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
357:00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
336:00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
299:23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
273:22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
253:22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
144:21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
132:20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5565:
5518:
4484:as the date of the desysop,
3632:
3440:
3275:
3052:
3006:Too controversial. Per this
2867:
2783:
2685:
773:
667:
592:
530:
109:
4401:
3494:important for adminship. --
1398:
1140:. Give him another chance.
401:'s edit summary usage with
285:if this RfA is successful?
153:Questions for the candidate
5911:
5760:Neutral leaning to Support
2304:have shown me that he is:
1978:Strongest Possible Support
1729:A brill user. Will make a
1419:agreement by the community
1107:Expansion on my rationale.
519:has arbcom approved this?
5713:Me too. I'm really torn.
4565:
4202:non-free content criteria
3582:Strongest possible oppose
2282:I did "That's hot" first!
1238:
65:(70/88/16); ended 20:17,
5872:Please do not modify it.
5839:, but there really is a
4885:
4882:
3016:block log of Betacommand
854:it's just doing it's job
320:What is your opinion of
194:User:Betacommand/Commons
40:Please do not modify it.
5802:as a rule, but another
4880:as per "The Parsnip!".
4035:non-free content policy
4019:I agree with this. ---
3588:an entire section from
2336:done any article work.
431:Links for Betacommand:
4807:. Ive also re-written
3821:compliant.... :) ~~
2583:to Knowledge disputes.
1893:per Alison and Riana.
1725:Really, Really, Really
3592:, claiming that that
3584:Earlier this year he
3012:block log for his bot
2742:Oppose for the moment
1668:Very Strongly Support
724:Arbitration Committee
31:request for adminship
3795:As was mentioned to
3664:One Night In Hackney
3612:One Night In Hackney
981:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
5508:(Let's Go Yankees!)
4303:Very Strong Oppose:
4098:with mop, again. -
3801:User:BetacommandBot
3574:Hit bull, win steak
3308:User:BetacommandBot
3304:User:BetacommandBot
3037:That diff was from
2897:today and yesterday
1618:. Knowledge needs
1508:Just barely support
413:RfAs for this user:
5694:
4791:Strong opposition.
4434:
4389:
4204:), is contrary to
2392:oppose grounds...
1932:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.
1915:
509:before commenting.
5772:
5678:
5605:Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor
5509:
5493:
5477:
5431:
5228:
5146:
5110:
5079:
5035:
4952:
4837:
4551:
4467:
4433:
4418:
4410:
4388:
4373:
3954:
3843:
3827:comment added by
3722:
3201:
3150:
2963:
2581:binding solutions
2395:
2394:</sarcasm: -->
2367:
2345:Hang on a sec...
1914:
1717:
1407:
1386:
1372:comment added by
1035:
1021:Strongest support
888:
840:Strongest support
709:
198:User:DinoSizedBot
89:) - Wikipedians!
5902:
5874:
5860:
5858:
5851:
5786:
5768:
5766:
5752:
5735:
5692:
5687:
5682:
5615:
5612:
5606:
5586:
5584:
5581:
5577:
5574:
5569:
5539:
5537:
5534:
5530:
5527:
5522:
5499:
5487:
5473:
5469:
5466:
5461:
5439:
5429:
5401:
5385:The Rambling Man
5295:
5292:
5289:
5286:
5262:
5226:
5222:
5219:
5170:
5143:
5137:
5132:
5129:
5126:
5118:
5117:
5107:
5101:
5096:
5093:
5090:
5075:
5051:
5046:
5032:
5026:
5021:
5018:
5015:
4996:
4991:
4948:
4917:
4887:
4884:
4836:
4745:
4737:
4689:
4682:
4599:
4595:
4592:
4576:
4567:
4547:
4511:
4463:
4432:
4430:
4425:
4419:
4409:
4406:
4400:
4387:
4385:
4380:
4374:
4319:
4294:
4253:
4238:
4233:
4228:
4084:
4012:
3955:
3952:
3948:
3946:
3904:
3855:
3849:
3822:
3820:
3814:
3809:User:Betacommand
3805:User:Betacommand
3720:
3676:
3672:
3665:
3653:
3651:
3648:
3644:
3641:
3636:
3624:
3620:
3613:
3598:very POV sources
3532:
3509:
3504:
3499:
3461:
3459:
3456:
3452:
3449:
3444:
3398:
3392:
3354:
3348:
3344:
3338:
3324:
3296:
3294:
3291:
3287:
3284:
3279:
3272:
3266:
3245:
3239:
3200:
3162:
3149:
3134:
3108:
3084:
3073:
3071:
3068:
3064:
3061:
3056:
3027:
2955:
2916:
2888:
2886:
2883:
2879:
2876:
2871:
2856:
2804:
2802:
2799:
2795:
2792:
2787:
2706:
2704:
2701:
2697:
2694:
2689:
2614:
2600:
2595:
2590:
2549:
2520:
2494:
2491:
2488:
2485:
2460:
2455:
2450:
2393:
2363:
2302:User:Betacommand
2265:
2250:
2245:
2240:
2229:
2196:
2193:
2177:
2135:
2092:
2090:
2084:
2078:
2034:
2032:
2030:
2028:
2026:
1988:
1984:
1912:
1883:
1854:
1849:
1844:
1812:
1809:
1806:
1803:
1738:
1714:
1711:
1696:
1691:
1533:
1528:
1472:
1456:
1441:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1406:
1403:
1397:
1385:
1366:
1330:
1300:
1299:
1294:
1276:
1271:
1255:
1240:
1235:
1181:I trust him. --
1174:
1145:
1124:
1123::) Dlohcierekim
1098:
1097::) Dlohcierekim
1078:
1060:Titanium Support
1050:
1027:
956:
950:
935:
933:
931:
929:
927:
884:
826:
823:
821:
794:
792:
789:
785:
782:
777:
738:
728:"kangaroo court"
710:
707:
703:
701:
688:
686:
683:
679:
676:
671:
613:
611:
608:
604:
601:
596:
551:
549:
546:
542:
539:
534:
497:
456:
392:General comments
130:
128:
125:
121:
118:
113:
92:I am nominating
58:
42:
5910:
5909:
5905:
5904:
5903:
5901:
5900:
5899:
5885:
5884:
5883:
5877:this nomination
5870:
5847:
5845:
5784:
5764:
5750:
5733:
5690:
5685:
5680:
5610:
5582:
5579:
5575:
5572:
5564:
5535:
5532:
5528:
5525:
5517:
5507:
5467:
5464:
5459:
5426:
5397:
5293:
5290:
5287:
5284:
5253:
5224:
5215:
5168:
5141:
5135:
5124:
5105:
5099:
5088:
5047:
5044:
5030:
5024:
5013:
4994:
4989:
4944:, per Matthew.
4915:
4743:
4735:
4687:
4678:
4593:
4590:
4587:
4517:
4507:
4428:
4423:
4420:
4404:
4383:
4378:
4375:
4317:
4292:
4251:
4236:
4231:
4226:
4158:per Johntex. ~
4082:
4008:
3950:
3942:
3902:
3853:
3847:
3818:
3812:
3675:
3670:
3663:
3661:
3649:
3646:
3642:
3639:
3631:
3623:
3618:
3611:
3609:
3528:
3507:
3502:
3497:
3457:
3454:
3450:
3447:
3439:
3396:
3390:
3352:
3346:
3342:
3336:
3322:
3292:
3289:
3285:
3282:
3274:
3270:
3264:
3243:
3237:
3160:
3127:
3106:
3082:
3069:
3066:
3062:
3059:
3051:
3025:
3010:, and also his
2901:
2884:
2881:
2877:
2874:
2866:
2841:
2800:
2797:
2793:
2790:
2782:
2702:
2699:
2695:
2692:
2684:
2612:
2598:
2593:
2588:
2547:
2518:
2492:
2489:
2486:
2483:
2458:
2453:
2448:
2399:
2271:
2261:
2248:
2243:
2238:
2222:
2191:
2175:
2155:
2131:
2088:
2082:
2076:
2074:
2024:
2022:
2020:
2018:
2016:
1986:
1982:
1881:
1852:
1847:
1842:
1810:
1807:
1804:
1801:
1734:
1709:
1692:
1689:
1526:
1524:
1470:
1454:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1401:
1367:
1338:Strong support:
1324:
1297:
1274:
1269:
1253:
1196:
1172:
1143:
1122:
1096:
1071:
954:
948:
925:
923:
921:
919:
917:
819:
817:
814:
790:
787:
783:
780:
772:
731:
705:
697:
684:
681:
677:
674:
666:
609:
606:
602:
599:
591:
547:
544:
540:
537:
529:
516:
449:
432:
428:
394:
309:Questions from
155:
126:
123:
119:
116:
108:
54:
52:
38:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
5908:
5906:
5898:
5897:
5887:
5886:
5882:
5881:
5865:
5864:
5830:
5817:
5796:
5795:
5794:
5757:
5740:
5723:
5708:
5698:
5671:
5656:
5644:
5632:
5619:
5596:
5595:
5594:
5593:
5592:
5591:
5590:
5547:absolutely not
5503:
5481:
5444:
5443:
5420:
5419:
5418:
5390:
5378:
5359:Solidly oppose
5356:
5355:
5354:
5353:
5352:
5339:Freakofnurture
5307:
5306:
5305:
5304:
5303:
5246:
5233:
5204:
5192:
5191:
5190:
5189:
5188:
5187:
5186:
5185:
5184:
5183:
5182:
5181:
5180:
5179:
5178:
5177:
5176:
5001:
4974:
4956:
4939:
4927:
4908:
4894:
4875:
4863:
4862:
4861:
4860:
4859:
4844:
4843:
4842:
4788:
4787:
4786:
4762:
4750:
4725:
4712:
4693:
4671:
4659:
4658:
4657:
4656:
4655:
4630:
4629:
4628:
4603:
4581:
4557:
4556:
4555:
4532:Richard Cavell
4521:
4513:
4500:
4471:
4454:
4442:
4441:
4440:
4439:
4438:
4366:
4354:
4342:
4341:
4340:
4339:
4338:
4300:
4278:Strong Oppose:
4275:
4259:
4243:
4219:
4194:
4181:
4165:
4153:
4141:
4121:
4112:recent request
4105:
4089:
4074:
4062:
4046:
4028:
4027:
4026:
3980:
3959:
3934:
3922:
3910:
3893:
3892:
3891:
3890:
3889:
3888:
3887:
3779:
3766:
3751:
3739:
3727:
3710:
3697:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3667:
3615:
3596:and they were
3579:
3567:
3552:
3539:
3521:
3520:
3519:
3518:
3517:
3516:
3515:
3426:per above and
3421:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3333:
3332:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3231:
3206:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3175:
3138:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2995:
2937:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2562:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2437:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2397:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2313:
2312:Highly uncivil
2310:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2268:
2201:
2200:
2182:
2168:
2163:VoL†ro/\/Force
2160:
2153:
2140:
2124:
2109:
2097:
2067:
2058:
2054:
2040:
2011:
1998:
1997:
1975:
1966:Strong Support
1963:
1950:
1937:
1919:
1903:
1888:
1874:
1862:Strong Support
1859:
1835:
1820:
1795:Strong Support
1792:
1781:
1742:
1727:Strong support
1721:
1702:
1677:
1665:
1644:
1632:Strong support
1629:
1613:
1608:Hiberniantears
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1537:
1518:
1505:
1493:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1446:
1411:
1387:
1363:Strong support
1360:
1359:
1358:
1335:
1320:Strong Support
1317:
1312:After Midnight
1305:
1282:
1261:
1245:
1226:
1212:
1200:
1194:
1188:
1179:
1156:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1082:
1057:
1042:Strong support
1039:
1018:
1008:
996:
977:Strong Support
974:
962:
941:
909:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
877:
838:Support Strong
834:
798:
760:
759:
743:
742:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
587:
586:
573:
572:
558:
557:
556:
555:
515:
512:
502:
501:
500:
498:
427:
426:
425:
420:
412:
411:
410:
403:mathbot's tool
393:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
362:
361:
360:
359:
340:
339:
338:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
261:Question from
258:
257:
256:
255:
239:
238:
226:Question from
223:
222:
221:
220:
203:
202:
201:
200:
175:
174:
173:
172:
154:
151:
149:
147:
146:
99:BetacommandBot
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5907:
5896:
5893:
5892:
5890:
5880:
5878:
5873:
5867:
5866:
5863:
5859:
5857:
5852:
5850:
5842:
5838:
5834:
5831:
5829:
5825:
5821:
5818:
5816:
5813:
5809:
5805:
5801:
5797:
5793:
5790:
5789:
5787:
5780:
5777:
5776:
5775:
5771:
5767:
5761:
5758:
5756:
5753:
5748:
5744:
5741:
5739:
5736:
5731:
5727:
5724:
5722:
5719:
5716:
5712:
5709:
5707:
5704:
5699:
5697:
5693:
5688:
5683:
5675:
5672:
5670:
5667:
5664:
5660:
5657:
5655:
5652:
5648:
5645:
5643:
5640:
5636:
5633:
5631:
5628:
5623:
5620:
5618:
5613:
5607:
5600:
5597:
5589:
5585:
5578:
5568:
5561:
5560:
5559:
5556:
5553:
5548:
5545:Adminship is
5544:
5543:
5542:
5538:
5531:
5521:
5514:
5513:
5512:
5506:
5502:
5498:
5497:
5491:
5485:
5482:
5480:
5476:
5472:
5471:
5470:
5462:
5454:
5451:
5450:
5449:
5448:
5442:
5437:
5433:
5424:
5421:
5417:
5414:
5409:
5408:
5407:
5404:
5402:
5400:
5394:
5391:
5389:
5386:
5382:
5379:
5377:
5374:
5369:
5364:
5363:contributions
5360:
5357:
5351:
5348:
5344:
5340:
5336:
5332:
5328:
5327:
5326:
5323:
5319:
5318:
5317:
5314:
5311:
5308:
5302:
5299:
5297:
5296:
5280:
5279:
5278:
5275:
5271:
5267:
5266:
5265:
5261:
5258:
5257:
5251:
5247:
5245:
5242:
5237:
5234:
5232:
5229:
5227:
5220:
5218:
5212:
5208:
5205:
5203:
5200:
5196:
5193:
5175:
5172:
5171:
5164:
5160:
5159:
5158:
5155:
5151:
5150:
5149:
5144:
5138:
5131:
5130:
5120:
5119:
5115:
5114:
5113:
5108:
5102:
5095:
5094:
5084:
5083:
5082:
5078:
5074:
5070:
5069:
5068:
5065:
5061:
5058:
5057:
5056:
5052:
5050:
5040:
5039:
5038:
5033:
5027:
5020:
5019:
5009:
5005:
5004:Strong Oppose
5002:
5000:
4997:
4992:
4986:
4982:
4978:
4975:
4973:
4970:
4969:
4965:
4960:
4957:
4955:
4951:
4947:
4943:
4940:
4938:
4935:
4931:
4928:
4926:
4923:
4922:
4918:
4912:
4909:
4907:
4902:
4898:
4895:
4893:
4890:
4888:
4879:
4876:
4874:
4871:
4867:
4864:
4858:
4855:
4850:
4845:
4841:
4838:
4834:
4830:
4829:
4828:
4825:
4820:
4819:
4818:
4815:
4810:
4806:
4801:
4800:
4799:
4796:
4792:
4789:
4785:
4782:
4778:
4775:
4774:
4773:
4770:
4766:
4765:Strong Oppose
4763:
4761:
4758:
4754:
4751:
4749:
4746:
4741:
4738:
4733:
4729:
4726:
4724:
4721:
4716:
4713:
4711:
4708:
4705:
4701:
4697:
4694:
4692:
4686:
4683:
4681:
4675:
4672:
4670:
4667:
4663:
4660:
4654:
4651:
4646:
4641:
4640:
4639:
4636:
4635:86.137.123.74
4631:
4627:
4624:
4619:
4618:
4617:
4616:
4615:
4612:
4607:
4604:
4602:
4598:
4596:
4585:
4582:
4580:
4577:
4575:
4569:
4568:
4562:per Matthew.
4561:
4558:
4554:
4550:
4546:
4542:
4538:
4537:
4536:
4533:
4529:
4525:
4522:
4520:
4516:
4510:
4504:
4501:
4499:
4496:
4492:
4487:
4486:n + ~4 months
4483:
4479:
4475:
4472:
4470:
4466:
4462:
4458:
4455:
4453:
4450:
4446:
4443:
4437:
4431:
4426:
4421:-- Tommy Boy
4415:
4414:
4413:
4407:
4399:
4394:
4393:
4392:
4386:
4381:
4376:-- Tommy Boy
4370:
4367:
4365:
4362:
4358:
4355:
4353:
4350:
4346:
4343:
4337:
4334:
4329:
4325:
4324:
4323:
4320:
4314:
4313:
4312:
4309:
4304:
4301:
4299:
4296:
4295:
4288:
4284:
4283:good judgment
4279:
4276:
4274:
4271:
4267:
4263:
4260:
4258:
4255:
4254:
4247:
4246:Strong oppose
4244:
4242:
4239:
4234:
4229:
4223:
4220:
4218:
4215:
4211:
4207:
4203:
4198:
4195:
4193:
4190:
4185:
4182:
4180:
4177:
4175:
4173:
4169:
4166:
4164:
4161:
4157:
4154:
4152:
4149:
4145:
4142:
4140:
4137:
4133:
4129:
4125:
4122:
4120:
4117:
4113:
4109:
4106:
4104:
4101:
4100:Mailer Diablo
4097:
4093:
4090:
4088:
4085:
4078:
4075:
4073:
4070:
4066:
4063:
4061:
4057:
4053:
4050:
4047:
4045:
4042:
4041:
4036:
4032:
4029:
4025:
4022:
4018:
4017:
4016:
4013:
4011:
4006:
4001:
3996:
3992:
3988:
3984:
3981:
3979:
3975:
3971:
3967:
3963:
3960:
3958:
3953:
3947:
3945:
3938:
3935:
3933:
3930:
3926:
3923:
3921:
3918:
3914:
3911:
3909:
3906:
3905:
3897:
3894:
3886:
3882:
3879:
3875:
3871:
3870:
3869:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3860:
3852:
3845:
3844:
3842:
3838:
3834:
3830:
3826:
3817:
3810:
3806:
3802:
3798:
3794:
3793:
3792:
3789:
3788:
3787:
3780:
3778:
3775:
3770:
3767:
3765:
3762:
3761:
3755:
3752:
3750:
3747:
3743:
3740:
3738:
3735:
3731:
3728:
3726:
3723:
3718:
3714:
3711:
3709:
3706:
3701:
3698:
3696:
3693:
3688:
3685:
3679:
3674:
3673:
3666:
3658:
3657:
3656:
3652:
3645:
3635:
3629:
3628:
3627:
3622:
3621:
3614:
3607:
3603:
3599:
3595:
3591:
3587:
3583:
3580:
3578:
3575:
3571:
3568:
3566:
3562:
3561:
3556:
3553:
3551:
3548:
3543:
3540:
3538:
3535:
3533:
3531:
3525:
3522:
3514:
3511:
3510:
3505:
3500:
3493:
3489:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3480:
3475:
3471:
3466:
3465:
3464:
3460:
3453:
3443:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3432:
3428:
3425:
3422:
3420:
3417:
3413:
3410:
3406:
3403:
3395:
3388:
3384:
3380:
3377:
3373:
3368:
3364:
3363:
3362:
3359:
3351:
3341:
3334:
3328:
3325:
3318:
3317:
3316:
3313:
3309:
3305:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3295:
3288:
3278:
3269:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3256:
3253:
3249:
3242:
3235:
3232:
3230:
3227:
3223:
3218:
3214:
3210:
3207:
3205:
3202:
3198:
3193:
3190:
3174:
3170:
3169:
3164:
3163:
3156:
3155:
3154:
3151:
3147:
3143:
3139:
3137:
3133:
3130:
3125:
3122:
3121:
3120:
3116:
3115:
3110:
3109:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3097:
3096:86.137.123.74
3093:
3092:
3091:
3088:
3087:
3085:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3072:
3065:
3055:
3049:
3048:
3047:
3044:
3040:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3031:
3030:
3028:
3021:
3017:
3013:
3009:
3005:
3002:
2994:
2991:
2990:86.137.123.74
2986:
2985:
2984:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2945:
2941:
2938:
2936:
2933:
2928:
2925:
2919:
2914:
2910:
2906:
2905:
2898:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2887:
2880:
2870:
2864:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2845:
2839:
2835:
2831:
2823:
2819:
2818:
2813:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2803:
2796:
2786:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2774:
2773:
2768:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2757:
2756:
2751:
2746:
2743:
2740:
2722:
2719:
2716:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2705:
2698:
2688:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2677:
2674:
2670:
2666:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2655:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2641:
2638:
2634:
2626:
2622:
2621:
2616:
2615:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2602:
2601:
2596:
2591:
2584:
2582:
2576:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2567:
2563:
2561:
2557:
2556:
2551:
2550:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2538:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2528:
2527:
2522:
2521:
2514:
2510:
2507:
2501:
2498:
2496:
2495:
2478:
2474:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2462:
2461:
2456:
2451:
2444:
2441:
2438:
2436:
2433:
2430:
2426:
2421:
2420:almost always
2417:
2411:
2408:
2407:86.137.123.74
2404:
2403:
2402:
2391:
2387:
2379:
2376:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2353:
2348:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2314:
2311:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2303:
2299:
2296:
2286:
2283:
2280:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2270:
2267:
2266:
2264:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2252:
2251:
2246:
2241:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2228:
2225:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2215:
2211:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2199:
2195:
2194:
2186:
2183:
2181:
2178:
2172:
2169:
2167:
2164:
2161:
2159:
2156:
2151:
2149:
2144:
2141:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2120:
2117:
2113:
2110:
2108:
2105:
2101:
2098:
2096:
2093:
2091:
2085:
2079:
2071:
2068:
2066:
2063:
2059:
2057:
2053:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2041:
2039:
2036:
2035:
2012:
2010:
2007:
2002:
1999:
1996:
1993:
1992:
1990:
1989:
1979:
1976:
1974:
1971:
1967:
1964:
1962:
1959:
1958:Dirk Beetstra
1954:
1951:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1938:
1936:
1933:
1929:
1928:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1913:
1907:
1904:
1902:
1899:
1896:
1892:
1889:
1887:
1884:
1878:
1877:Moral support
1875:
1873:
1870:
1868:
1863:
1860:
1858:
1855:
1850:
1845:
1839:
1836:
1834:
1831:
1828:
1824:
1821:
1819:
1816:
1814:
1813:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1770:
1766:
1763:
1760:
1756:
1753:
1750:
1746:
1743:
1741:
1737:
1732:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1697:
1695:
1685:
1681:
1678:
1676:
1673:
1669:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1658:
1652:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1633:
1630:
1628:
1625:
1624:Corvus cornix
1621:
1617:
1614:
1612:
1609:
1604:
1601:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1586:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1575:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1550:
1545:
1541:
1538:
1536:
1532:
1529:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1513:Pascal.Tesson
1509:
1506:
1504:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1485:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1420:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1404:
1396:
1391:
1388:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1364:
1361:
1357:
1354:
1353:Pascal.Tesson
1349:
1348:
1347:
1344:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1331:
1329:
1328:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1301:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1236:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1219:Videmus Omnia
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1165:Spike Wilbury
1160:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1091:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1049:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
988:
987:
982:
978:
975:
973:
970:
966:
963:
961:
957:
951:
945:
942:
940:
937:
936:
913:
910:
908:
905:
900:
897:
891:
887:
883:
878:
876:
873:
869:
864:
863:
862:
859:
855:
850:
849:
848:
845:
841:
839:
835:
833:
830:
827:
825:
810:
806:
802:
799:
797:
793:
786:
776:
770:
767:
766:
765:
764:
758:
755:
750:
745:
744:
741:
737:
736:bum and angel
734:
729:
725:
721:
720:
713:
708:
702:
700:
693:
692:
691:
687:
680:
670:
664:
663:
662:
661:
654:
651:
646:
645:
644:
641:
636:
635:
634:
631:
626:
625:
616:
612:
605:
595:
589:
588:
585:
582:
581:86.137.123.74
577:
576:
575:
574:
571:
568:
567:86.137.123.74
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
554:
550:
543:
533:
527:
526:
525:
522:
521:86.137.123.74
518:
517:
513:
511:
510:
508:
499:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
465:
462:
459:
455:
452:
448:
445:
442:
439:
435:
430:
429:
424:
421:
419:
416:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
391:
385:
382:
377:
374:
373:
371:
367:
364:
363:
358:
355:
350:
347:
346:
344:
341:
337:
334:
329:
326:
325:
323:
319:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
300:
297:
293:
292:
290:
287:
286:
284:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
271:
266:
265:
264:
254:
251:
246:
243:
242:
241:
240:
236:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
218:
214:
211:
210:
208:
205:
204:
199:
195:
191:
186:
183:
182:
180:
177:
176:
169:
166:
165:
163:
160:
159:
158:
152:
150:
145:
142:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
129:
122:
112:
106:
103:
100:
95:
90:
88:
85:
82:
78:
74:
73:
71:
68:
62:
57:
50:
47:
43:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
5871:
5868:
5855:
5848:
5840:
5832:
5819:
5807:
5803:
5799:
5782:
5778:
5765:Stwalkerster
5759:
5742:
5725:
5710:
5673:
5658:
5646:
5634:
5621:
5598:
5570:
5566:
5546:
5523:
5519:
5495:
5483:
5460:bibliomaniac
5457:
5456:
5452:
5446:
5445:
5422:
5398:
5392:
5380:
5367:
5362:
5358:
5320:Any reason?
5309:
5282:
5254:
5249:
5235:
5221:
5216:
5206:
5194:
5167:
5163:four hundred
5162:
5123:
5087:
5048:
5012:
5003:
4976:
4962:
4958:
4941:
4929:
4920:
4910:
4900:
4896:
4877:
4870:The Parsnip!
4865:
4849:deliberately
4848:
4809:User:RFC bot
4790:
4764:
4752:
4732:Wikipediarul
4727:
4714:
4695:
4679:
4673:
4661:
4644:
4605:
4583:
4573:
4564:
4559:
4540:
4523:
4502:
4485:
4481:
4477:
4473:
4456:
4444:
4368:
4356:
4344:
4327:
4302:
4291:
4286:
4282:
4277:
4261:
4249:
4245:
4221:
4196:
4183:
4167:
4155:
4143:
4127:
4123:
4107:
4095:
4091:
4076:
4064:
4048:
4040:Black Falcon
4038:
4030:
4009:
3999:
3986:
3982:
3961:
3943:
3936:
3924:
3912:
3900:
3895:
3862:
3857:
3785:
3783:
3768:
3758:
3753:
3741:
3729:
3712:
3699:
3686:
3668:
3637:
3633:
3616:
3581:
3569:
3559:
3554:
3541:
3529:
3523:
3495:
3491:
3487:
3473:
3469:
3445:
3441:
3423:
3411:
3366:
3280:
3276:
3233:
3212:
3208:
3191:
3166:
3158:
3123:
3112:
3104:
3080:
3057:
3053:
3038:
3023:
3008:Rude Comment
3003:
2939:
2926:
2902:
2896:
2872:
2868:
2862:
2842:
2833:
2815:
2788:
2784:
2770:
2753:
2741:
2690:
2686:
2669:already used
2668:
2664:
2618:
2610:
2586:
2580:
2578:
2553:
2545:
2524:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2481:
2476:
2472:
2446:
2439:
2419:
2389:
2326:lame insults
2297:
2262:
2260:
2236:
2209:
2203:
2202:
2189:
2184:
2170:
2142:
2132:
2126:
2111:
2104:Tom Harrison
2099:
2073:
2069:
2044:
2015:
2000:
1981:
1977:
1965:
1952:
1925:
1921:
1905:
1890:
1876:
1861:
1837:
1822:
1799:
1794:
1783:
1744:
1730:
1724:
1723:
1704:
1693:
1683:
1679:
1672:Sunderland06
1667:
1657:Sean William
1650:
1646:
1631:
1619:
1615:
1602:
1589:
1584:
1559:
1554:
1548:
1543:
1539:
1520:
1507:
1495:
1482:
1464:
1448:
1422:
1413:
1389:
1368:— Preceding
1362:
1337:
1326:
1325:
1319:
1307:
1284:
1267:
1263:
1252:
1247:
1228:
1214:
1202:
1190:
1168:
1164:
1158:
1141:
1134:
1120:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1094:
1089:
1084:
1059:
1047:
1041:
1020:
1003:Auger Martel
998:
984:
976:
964:
943:
916:
911:
898:
853:
837:
836:
815:
800:
778:
774:
768:
762:
761:
748:
727:
698:
672:
668:
597:
593:
535:
531:
504:
503:
490:
484:
478:
472:
466:
460:
453:
446:
440:
375:
365:
348:
342:
327:
317:
308:
307:
288:
278:
267:
260:
259:
244:
234:
225:
224:
212:
206:
190:User:RFC bot
184:
178:
167:
161:
156:
148:
137:
114:
110:
91:
83:
75:
67:13 September
64:
55:
53:
48:
39:
34:
28:
5812:Jonathunder
5798:I don't do
5730:Computerjoe
5373:User:Pedant
5335:Brianherman
4824:Newyorkbrad
4769:Sue Wallace
4449:Tim Vickers
4189:Is he back?
4128:as an admin
3874:User:Krator
3823:—Preceding
3797:User:Krator
3784:Dihydrogen
3690:backlogs.--
3590:Gerry Adams
3416:Bongwarrior
3372:User:Krator
3248:User:Krator
3236:bot is not
2322:bad grammar
2315:Belligerent
1940:GeorgeMoney
1787:Brianherman
1254:Wikidudeman
1207:Chick Bowen
1115:Betacommand
590:Well said.
434:Betacommand
399:Betacommand
228:Newyorkbrad
94:Betacommand
77:Betacommand
49:Betacommand
5347:David Levy
5248:Piling on
5169:RGTraynor
5064:David Levy
4854:David Levy
4795:David Levy
4720:Carcharoth
4293:RGTraynor
4094:, will go
4069:Kicking222
3859:Dihydrogen
3547:TigerShark
2116:Antandrus
1927:Wikipedier
1736:Phoenix 15
991:<*: -->
650:Iamunknown
630:Iamunknown
514:Discussion
5490:Review Me
5413:Acalamari
5399:Lost Kiwi
5322:Acalamari
5274:Acalamari
5270:like this
5217:Mr.crabby
5211:this edit
5199:Everyking
4934:Badagnani
4000:very much
3746:Brusegadi
3717:Sjakkalle
3043:Acalamari
2980:Brusegadi
2932:Pete.Hurd
2637:Mackensen
2575:WP:ARBCOM
2473:community
2148:Flyguy649
2083:seriously
1970:Versageek
1911:Hirohisat
1882:Nihiltres
1651:kilobytes
1374:Eagle 101
1327:Wizardman
1068:alter-ego
1048:NHRHS2010
858:Acalamari
844:Acalamari
476:block log
407:talk page
296:Acalamari
270:Acalamari
263:Acalamari
61:talk page
5889:Category
5824:Longhair
5663:mholland
5501:Contribs
5256:Argyriou
4950:complain
4916:Outriggr
4704:Picaroon
4509:xDanielx
4491:Philippe
4333:Xdenizen
4308:Xdenizen
4266:Ealdgyth
4096:Sideways
3863:Monoxide
3851:noadmins
3837:contribs
3825:unsigned
3786:Monoxide
3721:(Check!)
2838:his cool
2365:complain
2330:blocklog
2192:Jreferee
2154:contribs
2006:JayHenry
1867:lucasbfr
1827:Garion96
1710:FayssalF
1637:Andrew c
1544:de facto
1390:Support.
1382:contribs
1370:unsigned
1298:TomasBat
1289:this one
1183:Kbdank71
1144:Melsaran
1064:Moreschi
1013:Moreschi
986:Shazaam!
771:as nom.
444:contribs
370:recently
217:WP:CIVIL
87:contribs
5849:Anthøny
5833:Neutral
5820:Neutral
5808:support
5800:neutral
5779:Commnet
5743:Neutral
5734:'s talk
5726:Neutral
5711:Neutral
5674:Neutral
5659:Neutral
5647:Neutral
5635:Neutral
5622:Neutral
5599:Neutral
5484:Neutral
5453:Neutral
5447:Neutral
5343:Voltron
5313:John254
5073:Amarkov
4985:WP:RFCN
4833:Viridae
4831:Bingo.
4680:ALKIVAR
4545:Amarkov
4528:uncivil
4461:Amarkov
4214:DHowell
4172:Jaranda
4136:GRBerry
4132:his RfC
4056:Marcsin
4021:RockMFR
3983:Oppose.
3586:removed
3560:Johntex
3530:Prodego
3479:W.marsh
3431:W.marsh
3213:without
3197:Viridae
3161:Majorly
3146:Viridae
3107:Majorly
2974:. Why
2944:RockMFR
2812:GDonato
2767:GDonato
2750:GDonato
2613:Majorly
2577:says: "
2548:Majorly
2519:Majorly
2513:without
2338:Matthew
2279:Mike H.
2185:Support
2171:Support
2143:Support
2133:Sandahl
2127:Support
2112:Support
2100:Support
2070:Support
2062:Quadell
2001:Support
1953:Support
1930:is now
1922:Support
1906:Support
1895:ElinorD
1891:Support
1838:Support
1823:Support
1784:Support
1745:Support
1733:admin--
1705:Support
1680:Support
1647:Support
1603:Support
1540:Support
1531:iva1979
1521:Support
1449:Support
1414:Support
1308:Support
1285:Support
1270:krimpet
1264:Support
1248:Support
1234:Captain
1229:Support
1215:Support
1203:Support
1191:Support
1159:Support
1135:Support
1121:Cheers,
1118:future.
1095:Cheers,
1090:ArbCom,
1085:Support
999:Support
965:Support
949:Ryūlóng
944:Support
912:Support
899:Support
882:Amarkov
805:Matthew
801:Support
769:Support
763:Support
451:deleted
368:You've
311:Matthew
5804:oppose
5677:time.
5666:(talk)
5627:Shalom
5555:(talk)
5552:Friday
5423:Oppose
5393:Oppose
5381:Oppose
5331:OsamaK
5310:Oppose
5260:(talk)
5250:oppose
5236:Oppose
5225:(Talk)
5207:Oppose
5195:Oppose
5128:acĸrм
5092:acĸrм
5049:DrNick
5017:acĸrм
4977:Oppose
4942:Oppose
4930:Oppose
4911:Oppose
4897:Oppose
4878:Oppose
4866:Oppose
4805:WT:NFC
4757:17Drew
4753:Oppose
4728:Oppose
4715:Oppose
4696:Oppose
4674:Oppose
4662:Oppose
4650:Wiggy!
4645:proper
4611:Madman
4606:Oppose
4584:Oppose
4560:Oppose
4524:Oppose
4503:Oppose
4474:Oppose
4457:Oppose
4445:Oppose
4369:Oppose
4357:Oppose
4349:Walton
4345:Oppose
4318:Keegan
4262:Oppose
4232:master
4222:Oppose
4197:Oppose
4184:Oppose
4168:Oppose
4160:Danelo
4156:Oppose
4148:Rlevse
4144:Oppose
4124:Oppose
4108:Oppose
4092:Oppose
4083:Keegan
4077:Oppose
4049:Oppose
4031:Oppose
3991:WT:CSD
3966:Roadmr
3962:Oppose
3937:Oppose
3929:Wiggy!
3925:Oppose
3913:Oppose
3903:Pursey
3896:Oppose
3816:nobots
3769:Oppose
3754:Oppose
3742:Oppose
3734:Ghirla
3730:Oppose
3713:Oppose
3700:Oppose
3692:Dacium
3687:Oppose
3570:Oppose
3555:Oppose
3542:Oppose
3524:Oppose
3498:Boricu
3424:Oppose
3412:Oppose
3367:behind
3350:nobots
3340:nobots
3323:Keegan
3268:nobots
3241:nobots
3234:Oppose
3222:Splash
3217:WP:AIV
3192:Oppose
3142:WP:BOT
3132:styles
3004:Oppose
2976:WP:COI
2972:WP:COI
2940:Oppose
2927:oppose
2834:oppose
2764:=: -->
2718:(talk)
2715:Friday
2676:(talk)
2673:Friday
2640:(talk)
2589:Boricu
2509:Oppose
2475:, and
2449:Boricu
2440:Oppose
2432:(talk)
2429:Friday
2298:Oppose
2239:Boricu
2227:styles
2210:Oppose
2204:Oppose
2119:(talk)
1898:(talk)
1830:(talk)
1694:DrNick
1574:(talk)
1571:Friday
1469:Riana
1453:Riana
1113:case.
1111:ArbCom
1076:styles
868:Splash
803:- per
754:Walton
733:madman
5715:Dfrg.
5703:Shell
5639:Samir
4981:bitey
4959:Never
4946:@pple
4566:T Rex
4402:(aka
4227:Grand
4010:juice
4005:Mango
3951:(Ni!)
3917:Xoloz
3760:Sarah
3394:nobot
3129:Comet
2390:those
2361:@pple
2224:Comet
2214:Giano
2089:folks
2046:freak
2017:: -->
1987:demon
1731:great
1399:(aka
1343:Danny
1239:panda
1073:Comet
809:Kudos
726:is a
706:(Ni!)
458:count
72:(UTC)
56:Final
33:that
16:<
5841:long
5770:talk
5747:Wily
5611:tαlk
5436:talk
5341:and
5241:Stan
5142:sign
5136:talk
5106:sign
5100:talk
5077:moo!
5031:sign
5025:talk
5010:. →
5008:this
4990:Neil
4968:blis
4883:Scar
4744:2221
4666:John
4594:ecir
4591:Ocat
4574:talk
4549:moo!
4495:Talk
4465:moo!
4405:Wimt
4398:Will
4328:very
4287:more
4270:Talk
3995:WP:B
3987:open
3944:Kwsn
3833:talk
3774:AKAF
3606:this
3602:here
3508:ddie
3470:many
3358:Nick
3209:Nope
3168:talk
3114:talk
2961:Desk
2957:Talk
2953:ST47
2817:talk
2772:talk
2755:talk
2654:Nick
2620:talk
2599:ddie
2566:Nick
2555:talk
2537:Nick
2526:talk
2459:ddie
2334:ever
2309:Rude
2263:Sebi
2249:ddie
2050:talk
2033:<
1944:talk
1843:Jmlk
1772:sama
1762:sama
1752:sama
1684:fiat
1620:more
1487:not?
1402:Wimt
1395:Will
1378:talk
1173:talk
1150:talk
1033:Desk
1029:Talk
1025:ST47
969:Cobi
904:Nick
886:moo!
699:Kwsn
528:Ha!
488:rfar
470:logs
438:talk
397:See
81:talk
70:2007
5837:BAG
5785:Pat
5718:msc
5681:Hús
5651:Deb
5583:mit
5580:her
5536:mit
5533:her
5432:501
5430:ETS
5368:add
5139:|
5103:|
5028:|
4964:nae
4886:ian
4707:(t)
4541:was
4252:Ben
4116:KTC
4065:No.
4054:--
3829:SQL
3811:is
3705:RxS
3671:303
3650:mit
3647:her
3619:303
3474:all
3458:mit
3455:her
3312:SQL
3293:mit
3290:her
3124:OMG
3083:Pat
3070:mit
3067:her
3039:May
3026:Pat
2885:mit
2882:her
2801:mit
2798:her
2703:mit
2700:her
2665:got
2477:not
2375:SQL
2352:SQL
2324:or
2077:But
1777:}}
1767:}}|
1590:ʏɑɴ
1585:ɑʀк
1560:ʏɑɴ
1555:ɑʀк
1549:not
1500:SQL
1465:lot
791:mit
788:her
749:did
685:mit
682:her
610:mit
607:her
548:mit
545:her
494:spi
464:AfD
322:IAR
127:mit
124:her
5891::
5826:\
5691:nd
5576:ki
5573:Wi
5529:ki
5526:Wi
5337:,
5333:,
5272:.
5133:(
5097:(
5053:!
5045:Hi
5022:(
4588:—
4570:|
4493:|
4361:╦╩
4268:|
4237:ka
4212:.
4058:|
3976:)
3883:)
3854:}}
3848:{{
3839:)
3835:•
3819:}}
3813:{{
3643:ki
3640:Wi
3563:\
3492:is
3451:ki
3448:Wi
3397:}}
3391:{{
3381:)
3353:}}
3347:{{
3343:}}
3337:{{
3310:.
3286:ki
3283:Wi
3271:}}
3265:{{
3257:)
3244:}}
3238:{{
3226:tk
3224:-
3171:)
3117:)
3063:ki
3060:Wi
2911:•
2878:ki
2875:Wi
2851:•
2820:)
2794:ki
2791:Wi
2775:)
2758:)
2696:ki
2693:Wi
2623:)
2558:)
2529:)
1956:--
1946:)
1924:--
1713:-
1698:!
1690:Hi
1438:da
1426:Mi
1384:)
1380:•
1162:--
1152:)
989:-
983:-
958:)
955:竜龍
934:te
932:ai
930:hw
928:et
926:tl
924:os
920:an
918:Ry
872:tk
870:-
820:is
784:ki
781:Wi
678:ki
675:Wi
603:ki
600:Wi
541:ki
538:Wi
482:lu
376:A.
366:8.
349:A.
343:7.
328:A.
318:6.
289:A:
279:5.
245:A:
235:4.
213:A:
207:3.
185:A:
179:2.
168:A:
162:1.
120:ki
117:Wi
63:)
37:.
5856:ん
5751:D
5686:ö
5614:)
5608:(
5567:~
5520:~
5505:@
5496:R
5492:)
5488:(
5468:5
5465:1
5438:)
5434:(
5428:M
5294:y
5291:k
5288:r
5285:A
5154:β
5145:)
5125:j
5109:)
5089:j
5042:➪
5034:)
5014:j
4995:ム
4966:'
4921:§
4852:—
4814:β
4781:β
4740:s
4736:e
4688:☢
4685:™
4623:β
4515:C
4512:/
4482:n
4429:♪
4424:♪
4408:)
4384:♪
4379:♪
3974:c
3972:|
3970:t
3968:(
3881:c
3878:t
3876:(
3831:(
3634:~
3503:æ
3486:"
3442:~
3402:β
3379:c
3376:t
3374:(
3277:~
3255:c
3252:t
3250:(
3165:(
3111:(
3054:~
2959:·
2915:)
2913:喝
2909:说
2907:(
2904:O
2900:—
2869:~
2855:)
2853:喝
2849:说
2847:(
2844:O
2814:(
2785:~
2769:(
2752:(
2687:~
2617:(
2594:æ
2552:(
2523:(
2493:y
2490:k
2487:r
2484:A
2454:æ
2398:]
2396:—
2244:æ
2176:B
2086:|
2080:|
2052:)
2048:(
2042:—
2031:t
2029:n
2027:a
2025:i
2023:d
2021:a
2019:R
1983:^
1942:(
1853:7
1848:1
1811:y
1808:k
1805:r
1802:A
1775:K
1769:O
1765:K
1759:O
1757:|
1755:K
1749:O
1660:@
1527:S
1484:Y
1471:⁂
1455:⁂
1435:n
1432:a
1429:r
1405:)
1376:(
1293:♠
1275:⟲
1195:]
1169:♫
1148:(
1031:·
952:(
922:P
880:-
829:☺
824:n
822:o
818:l
816:A
775:~
669:~
640:β
594:~
532:~
496:)
491:·
485:·
479:·
473:·
467:·
461:·
454:·
447:·
441:·
436:(
409:.
381:β
354:β
333:β
250:β
141:β
111:~
84:·
79:(
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.