Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:27, 7 September 2007

Betacommand

Voice your opinion (talk page) (21/18/3); Scheduled to end 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand (talk · contribs) - Wikipedians!

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

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

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: admins are selected because they are supposed to get things done, Keep CSD clean (many admins dont touch that), our image backlogs, page protections, and vandalism/spam reverting. I do not seek adminship for glory, but instead I want it to help the few poor souls who try and keep those backlogs under control. (Let me take a moment and thank those unnamed user who do the crap jobs)

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

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

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:yes, I am regularly subject to personal attacks and WP:CIVIL breaches, for the most part I respond in a calm civil uniformity manner, I have on rare occasion been subject to falling for a troll and losing my cool.

Question from Newyorkbrad

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

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

Question from Acalamari

Regardless of your answer, I will remain strongly in support of this RfA. Acalamari 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Would you consider putting yourself in Category: Administrators open to recall if this RfA is successful?

A:I would not place my self in the category, But I would be willing to resign if users I trust come to me in a calm civil manner and as for it (and there is a consensus)

A fine answer to my question. Acalamari 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Requests for adminship/Betacommand
• Requests for adminship/Betacommand 2

• Links for Betacommand: Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• has arbcom approved this? 86.137.123.74 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha! ~ Wikihermit 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that he required arbcom approval before he could become an admin again. i guess i was wrong? 86.137.123.74 23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• oh my bad. i checked the arbcom finding and he doesn't require approval for an rfa. still, i think he's a good guy and trustworthy as an admin. he does a lot of unpopular dirty work that most people wont touch with a bargepole, puts up with more shit than anyone ive seen on the wiki and usually deals with it calmly and works to resolve the issues. 86.137.123.74 23:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. ~ Wikihermit 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. ~ Wikihermit 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - per Matthew. Seriously, working CSD issues, bot or not, is a dirty job. Kudos to Betacommand for doing it & putting up with a lot of abuse as a result. As someone who has previously been sysopped, the fundamental question is not whether I like the guy or not, but do I trust him with the sysop bit? And the answer is "yes". QED - Alison ☺ 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Strong support I don't believe he'll misuse or abuse the tools again. Acalamari 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Changing to strong support for the following rationale: Betacommand gets hit with a lot of crap over the BetacommandBot from users who don't understand the image policy very well and think the bot is malfunctioning, when in fact, it's just doing it's job. He handles this very well, in my opinion. The BetacommandBot is an excellent and highly useful bot, and it's a bot we shouldn't lose. I don't believe Betacommand will be abusive or misuse the admin tools again because I don't think Betacommand wants to go through arbitration again. I strongly advise that Betacommand take great care in performing blocks, protects, and deletions, and that whenever he's asked about his admin actions, he fully explain them. Regarding the recent ArbCom decision not to resysop him, I do not hold this against him and do not believe it should be held against him. At the moment (as of 21:39 6 September, 2007), this RfA is proving why it's hard to resysop admins desysopped by the Arbitration Committee. Acalamari 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   That's because being desysopped by the committee is just about the most serious loss of trust an admin can develop. To recover from that, particularly given earlier experiences at re-sysopping the de-sysopped, is a difficult feat indeed. Furthermore, to recover from that given that he has not recovered in the eyes of the committee itself is considerably more difficult (I would hope). Splash - tk 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Support A user such as Betacommand should not have to suffer another RfA because of the shocking stupidity of Arbcom. Their findings which flew in the face of the communities wishes at the time of Arbitration are nothing short of a disgrace. Nick 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - his ArbCom case is in the past and I believe that Betacommand has learned from his past mistakes. His image tagging work is excellent and I am positive he will use the tools wisely this time. In my opinion, his communication skills have improved significantly since his case and would work with the community should any concerns appear. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support: Betacommand does work that makes it easier for us to be both free and an encyclopedia. His bot work is merely hated because the English Misplaced Pages has too much of a fixation on its non-free media and its massive misuse in articles. His arbitration case and subsequent appeal to the arbitration committee should have no meaning here, where we discuss how we feel Betacommand will help us out with a few extra buttons. We know he's learned from past mistakes, and won't be repeating history if he gets his block and delete buttons back.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support: I think he has learned his lesson about running bots with a sysop flag :) -- Cobi 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - Lesson learned. He does huge amounts of necessary, thankless work, and the tools will prove a great advantage. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support: Betacommand does a lot of unappreciated work in regards to CSD and I believe the ArbCom decision was rather unfair to him. I fully trust him with the tools, appreciate his contributions and believe that the tools themselves won't be misused under his guidance. Good luck.--Auger Martel 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Betacommand cops a ridiculous amount of flak for no good reasons from the cruft-adoring, fair-use-loving fanboy brigade for trying to keep Misplaced Pages clean of junk that fundamentally contradicts our basic mission. Under such circumstances of intense pressure, I can forgive the odd slip. Moreschi 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Strongest support. He knows how to use the tools, he has the experience, he knows fair use policy, and now everyone's watching him. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong support Betacommand was a great admin in the past...I miss him as an admin. NHRHS2010 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Titanium Support - What can i say, he deserves it. He is very under-appreciated, (come-on give him credit for his hard work). Moreschi proves my point..He has had his bad days but his contribution and his alter-ego's contribution has been Admirable..Best of Luck..--Cometstyles 22:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support absent any oppose based on post Arbcom decision behavior. I saw none in the dif's provided. It's only been 4 months since the Arbcom case, so I feel I'm going out on a limb here. 6 would have been better. No disrespect to ArbCom, but my hope is that the good this nom does will outweigh the harm he caused. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    Expansion on my rationale. I do not feel it is germaine to bring up offenses from before the ArbCom case. Betacommand has had time to consider how to improve his behavior and to understand how the commuinty feels about some past behavior. The time has come to leave the past in the past with expectations of constructive, admin worthy deportment in the future. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

15. Support yes. Betacommand has learned from his past mistakes and I've seen him work towards a productive solution at difficult times. Give him another chance. Melsaran (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support without question. He's made mistakes... who hasn't? They were not malicious. Every time I see Betacommand act, it is with the project's best interests in mind. We need users and admins like Betacommand. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
17. I trust him. --Kbdank71 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Beta is a great user. If the ArbCom had trouble reaching a consensus, I see no reason by any stretch of the imagination to oppose based on ArbCom precedent. —] 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. Arbcom has never said that BC should never again be an admin. They have said he should request adminship from the community if he wants it back. So, if we think he's learned from the problems of the past (I think he has) and he'll continue to work as hard for the project as he always has (I think he will) then let's give it to him. Chick Bowen 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support unreservedly. I can think of few people who have done more to uphold the core mission of our encyclopedia. Videmus Omnia 23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support I definitely believe that Misplaced Pages will benefit from having Betacommand resysnopped. He has done very much good work for the encyclopedia. Captain panda 23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - The Arbcom did NOT say they he could never be an Admin again. They simply Desyopped him. The Arbcom clearly said that he could reapply whenever he wanted. He is a great editor who made a few mistakes a few months ago and has learned from them. There is no reason he shouldn't be an admin based on something that he has learned from. I trust him. Wikidudeman 00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Unreliable and cannot be trusted. Giano 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose — I've had experiences with this user and nonr have been pleasant. I don't think he was/would be a good administrator. My experiences with User:Betacommand have shown me that he is:

   1. Rude
   2. Highly uncivil
   3. Belligerent

   Betacommand also has poor communicative skills (such as bad grammar or lame insults). He also runs one of the most (if not the only) defective bots on Misplaced Pages which is constantly being discussed/blocked due to an endless amount of bugs (blocklog). Honestly I think Betacommand would utilise the sysop tools to: a) unblock his bot when it "develops" another bug, b) block people he is in disagreement with and c) use the rollback tool to edit war quickly. I'm not even sure if he's even interested in the encyclopaedia, he seems to like politics and enforcing his view of policy... yet I don't think he's ever done any article work. Matthew 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   So speculation and bad grammar, eh? Well, I can't argue with you on those oppose grounds... </sarcasm> —] 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   So you're saying that he has poor grammar but at the same time you want him to write articles? Haha. 86.137.123.74 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

3. The only relevant question is, how will he use the admin tools? RFA is tricky because we almost always have to guess. Here, we need to do no guessing, we only need look at how he used them before they were taken away. From the very beginning of his admin career, his admin actions were frequently highly questionable. Mistakes are certainly allowed, but this goes beyond a simple mistake. (I edited my comment comment here; the original follows: I think Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand is informative here. Betacommand has a history of poor judgment and poor communication regarding his activities. We don't have to guess how he would use the admin tools, we already know.) Friday (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - sorry, man. I respect you, and I appreciate everything you do here, but if the Arbitration Committee doesn't want you to be an admin , then neither do I. You are constantly uncivil and blocked. It'd be madness to give you admin rights if you constantly make mistakes with your bot. Also, you don't have much mainspace participation. Again, sorry. --Boricuæddie 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Matthew, regarding the communitive skills, and I think you make enough errors without admin tools to make things worse. Your recent RfAr is showing/has shown that the arbitrators do not want you to be resysopped. I agree with them. Majorly (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   On present form, the Arbitrators judgement simply cannot be trusted. Nick 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for your opinion Nick, but yes they can, in this case. I agree with them totally. Majorly (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, I did mean to say it's only the Arbitrators opinion not to return Beta's tools. The community should completely disregard the Arbitration committee if they so desire. Nick 21:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Forgive me if I'm wrong, but WP:ARBCOM says: "Arbitration Committee is a group of users that exists to impose binding solutions to Misplaced Pages disputes." I don't think we can "disregard" their decisions at our will. --Boricuæddie 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Whatever the case may be about ignoring the ArbCom, I agree with them here. I wish good luck to Betacommand, and hope that if he passes he treads extremely carefully so as to not have any more problems. Majorly (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   The Arbitration Committee declined to re-sysop Betacommand on its own authority, but specifically allowed him to seek restoration at RfA. The difference is subtle, but important. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   The arbitration committee gave two options for Betacommand to be resysopped, either through an appeal or through the RfA process. The appeal process showed considerable support from the Arbitrators with 3 of the committee in favour of Betacommand having his administrator tools returned. The arbitrators sadly fell into the trap of confusing a controversial subject (images and fair use) with Betacommand's actually behaviour which is not controversial). Given the flip flopping displayed by the committee with Arbitrators previously against desysopping refusing to support the appeal, I strongly suggest the community ignores the previous Arbitration case and/or the actions of his bot and focuses on Betacommand. Nick 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   You're saying to ignore the arbitration case? You have got to be kidding. It's highly relevant to how he used him admin tools. We have the tremendous benefit on this RFA that we can look at how the candidate already used the tools. Why on earth would we ignore relevant information when making an important decision like this? Friday (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Simply because you agree with the kangaroo court doesn't mean they're right. ~ Wikihermit 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not asking anyone to buy whatever arbcom says. Read the case for yourself. Or, if this is too much, just skim the findings of fact. They're not lying. He regularly made bad blocks and was unwilling to learn from people's disagreements with his actions. Bad blocks are probably the single most drama-causing thing that can go wrong. We don't need more of this. Friday (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose for the moment Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand raised many, many issues and trust is of high importance for me when it comes to adminship. Would like to see a longer post-desysop history of evidence of trust. Highly respected but I can't support yet. Sorry, GDonato (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   => this should not be taken to be a negative review of Betacommand's post-RfArb work, which has been good. GDonato (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Then I see no reason to oppose. If his post arbcom issues are answered, their should be no concerns. ~ Wikihermit 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Trust issues do not disappear overnight, this will take time to rebuild. Betacommand has now shown some trustworthiness as an editor but I still have doubts when it comes to adminship. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

7. I am sorry but I am going to have to oppose. While Bcommand has made some good contributions that shape Misplaced Pages, such as our NFCC, I do not trust this user, mostly because of his controversial bot. I also oppose because of how he deals with other users that may get him to respond without his cool (Q #3). The RFAR on this user's behalf is also very scary when someone comments in this RFA. The block log is also shamefully scary. —O (说 • 喝) 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   "I do not trust this user, mostly because of his controversial bot" - his bot has been approved for every task it run. Also, I don't understand how having a bot, controversial or not, qualifies a user to be an admin. The last block of any value was nearly 6 months ago in March. ~ Wikihermit 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   While it may have been approved before the task was run, the scope of the editors commenting is pretty low. However, some has gotten to be a bit controversial, but still enforcing policy. One of its tasks I remember was tagging non-free media without rationales and informing only the uploader, and discussion later suggested that it could've also informed other venues (i.e. article talk page) where others could've added a rationale. I don't know if Bcommand followed the advice or not, but another concern I've forgotten to add is if Bcommand can actually go with consensus. Even more, there were blocks today and yesterday which meant that Bcommand should thrice-check his code for bugs before running it on a live wiki. Running bots mean that you need a high level of trust, and I do not believe Bcommand has earned my trust at this time. —O (说 • 喝) 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

8. oppose nominator states: "BC is always willing to help out other users and explains procedures and guidelines" I have not found this to be the case, not even close. The only time I've been driven to (try) quitting wikipedia has been due to frustrations over this issue. Pete.Hurd 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Far too controversial. Just yesterday his bot "ran amuck" again. The user hasn't changed. --- RockMFR 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   This RfA is for Betacommand, not his bot. His bot's shortcomings are not going to worsen if he is promoted. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose Too controversial. Per this Rude Comment, and also his block log for his bot. I am not just opposing about his bot, I am opposing because of the rude comment. It shows lack of self-control. And this is the block log of Betacommand Sorry. Pat 22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    That diff was from May, and regarding the block log for the bot see ST47's response to RockMFR above. Acalamari 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    (ec) That comment was made nearly four months ago and was a result of matthew bugging betacommand. BC hadn't been validly block since at least March, IMO. The block in July was a mistake, which I can understand as a bot op myself. ~ Wikihermit 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    But the rude comment to Matthew is not acceptable. That is not how an admin should act. Pat 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oh please. Matthew was accusing him of stealing. 86.137.123.74 23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose I seem to remember quite a few cases where his civility was lacking in dealing with people complaining about his bot. Wether they were in the right or the wrong, running a bot like this is likely to attract a lot of comments and some of what I have seen has been terse at best. Add that to the committee's opinion that they can't trust him with the tools and you have my oppose. Viridae 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Nope. Began to go off the rails immediately after his first RfA, didn't stop until forced to do so. Given evidence of abuse and misuse of his admin tools, and the exceptionally poor communication that went with it, there is every reason not to re-sysop. I can't see why we need to, given the regular production from this page of admins without a track-record of bad stuff. Furthermore, he went through that POINT-making (in the actual, experimental disruption meaning of the page) phase of username tantrums by dumping hundreds of them on WP:AIV in temper. Much demonstration is made above of continuing issues of incivilty. Also, the question of the operation of Betacommandbot and the endless trials and tribulations it causes are material here: the complaints about them are in general handled at the highest level of indignation. Finally, the arbitration committee has just last week or so refused to re-sysop him, which advice is good; and this after de-sysopping him in almost record time in the first place. Splash - tk 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose bot is not {{nobots}} compliant. Though this is optional, making and running such a bot on a large scale does not show the kind of intentions I want to see with an administrator. User:Krator (t c) 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    That's completely stupid Krator. Whether or not a bot follows {{nobots}} does not determine whether BC should be sysopped or not. Besides, what if I didn't have rationales for a fair use image and added the nobots template? ~ Wikihermit 23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose - While this editor does a lot of very valuable work, the civility issues concern me. --Bongwarrior 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per above and ... last 1,000 edits reveal apparently nothing but removals of images, links and other content. I think adding to articles rather than just removing from them is important to being able to make good decisions as an admin. --W.marsh 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    Being a sysop gives you access to technical features. Writing articles has little to do with being a sysop. Not everyone is great with article writing.~ Wikihermit 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

    But we're not robots, an apt analogy in this specific case, I think. Being an admin not as simple as just following a set of rules, in fact Misplaced Pages has intentionally avoided that kind of an environment. Doing what's best for an article means having a feel for what makes a good article, not just having what NFCC says memorized. This user has demonstrated many poor decisions based on lack of article writing knowledge... for example once I remember his bot was removing any links to any domains he considered bad sites. It's true that many links to MySpace, Google groups, etc. will be bad, but all won't be... and this is something article writing would inform one about. On another note, other than responding to the many complaints about his bot, I see no involvement by the user in other sorts of disputes, like content disputes. I've looked through his past 5,000 article edits now, spanning 6 months, and see literally nothing but formulaic removals of content. If it weren't so one-sided, I'd reconsider... but in 6 months this user apparently has never edited an article except to remove content, and 95% of the time it was following some set rule, making many robot-like edits at the same time. This pattern just gives me very little confidence. --W.marsh 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose, per the civility issues above, and my own observation/experience. Prodego 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose As has been stated above, most admins are promoted without really knowing how they will act once they have the bit. In this case we do know and it was a sorry story of blantantly ignoring established procedure and arrogantly ignoring other users. This only stopped because of the ArbCom's involvement. I have no doubt that Betacommand would not be so blatant in future, but they have shown their true colours and I cannot imagine ever trusting this individual with adminship again. TigerShark 23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose, while I appreciate that Betacommand makes many valuable contributions, there were serious issues that led to desysopping and it is far too soon to tell if Betacommand has learned from those mistakes. It has only been four months. Even if we wipe the slate clean, a four month track-record is not enough for adminship. Johntex\ 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose. He's done good work at times in the past, but I'm not ready to trust him in a position of authority again, at least not yet. Sorry. -Hit bull, win steak 00:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Although skilled and respected, I am wary about resysopping Betacommand because of said reasons from the opposing side. However, it's almost impossible to escape unscathed when working in the hell of images and fair use, and I respect that. bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral-You're a great editor, your bot is probably one of the best, if not the best out there. You have to put up with a lot of the people illiterate on image policy, even with the big stop sign on your page. I'm just worried about the civilty. You're block log shows a lot. And a lot of times admins are the face of Misplaced Pages (ie. a newbie comes to your talk page, you delete a page and someone disagrees). We need someone who will keep cool. If you can go a few more months without being blocked/not losing your cool a lot, I will support right away. I trust you as a sysop, and trusted you as one, but I don't know how you'll communicate with the users that come flocking to your talk page complaining. --(Review Me) R Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   R, Betacommand often deals with people running across his talk page complaining about his bot, fair use policy, ect. I'd go mad if I had to put up with the crap Betacommand goes through daily, and the little thanks he gets for his hard work. ~ Wikihermit 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Adminship is absolutely not about rewarding people for their work. We have barnstars and whatnot for that. RFA should be about one thing- how well the candidate will use the admin tools. I sincerely hope you're not looking to hang out adminship like it's a shiny trophy. Friday (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

   Where did I say that? I simply said Betacommand does a lot of hard work that no one wants to do without any thanks. I never said we should reward BC by sysopping him. Admin work is usually thankless, and betacommand is well aware of this. ~ Wikihermit 22:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral - I will not bring up the arb-com case because it has been brought up so much already. You certainly have done some good work, but your communication style stinks. Your rude comments that I have seen in several situations apalls me and needs to be changed. I'm sorry to say that I don't feel giving you the tools back would be a wise move. Sorry, but neutral. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)