User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate1

Candidate1

Final (112/71/11) ended 03:55, 5 December 2099 (UTC)

Candidate1 (talk · contribs) – Candidate1 is a former administrator whose admin status was revoked by the arbitration committee six months ago as a remedy in the matter that came to be known as the Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Candidate1's actions in that matter appear to have been a one-time (albeit egregious) failure of judgement rather than part of an overall pattern. Time has gone by, and in discussing that unfortunate matter with Candidate1, I have concluded that he has learned from that mistake. Just as importantly, he has continued to serve the project, in stark contrast to the other administrator subject to a similar remedy. Candidate1's most recent work has been the important but thankless job of policing fair use image claims. I also note the considerable productivity he has demonstrated in the past using the admin tools. I believe that the project would be best served by granting him adminship once again.

The Nominator 22:48, 18 August 2099 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Of course. --Candidate1 03:01, 29 August 2099 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Deleting no-source and no-license images and other image CSDs. Undeleting images on the rare occasion where someone provides source or copyright information after the image was deleted. Explaining to people why their no-source or no-license image was deleted (much easier if I can check the deleted image description page to say "You uploaded it on the 7th without any indication of where it was from, it was tagged on the 13th by User:Joe Bloggs, my bot removed it from the article on the 18th, and it was deleted by User:SomeAdmin on the 21st"). Right now, all I can do is point to the image use policy and refer the user to the admin who deleted the image.

For those who say I can run OrphanBot just fine without administrator rights, here's a list of things related to running the bot I currently can't do:

I can't delete images when someone tells me they uploaded it by mistake.
I can't undelete images when someone comes to me with source or copyright information.
OrphanBot can't edit protected pages to remove unsourced or no-license images. I can't either.
I can't delete "by-permission" or "no commercial use" images that OrphanBot finds while tagging new uploads.
There's no point in me following up on images OrphanBot has identified as untagged, since 95% of the time, the images need to be deleted.
Since I'm not an administrator, there are certain ways that people could interfere with OrphanBot's operation that I can't prevent.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: The increased focus on image copyright problems. I can't take all the credit, but there was a definite increase in attention on the subject after I started objecting to the majority of Featured Article candidates as having problems with the images.

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

A: Most of the stress I face comes from enforcing the Wikipedia image use policies. Probably the hardest part comes from having to inform users that the hard work they've done to get permission for Wikipedia to use an image isn't good enough: that they need to get the image released under a free license.

Peoples' responses to OrphanBot haven't been much of a problem recently: the people who oppose Wikipedia's image use policies have either figured out that the bot just enforces the policies, so opposing the bot won't change the policy, or they've resorted to petty harassment and vandalism, which deesn't affect either me or the bot.

(Optional) question from Mike Christie (talk)

4. There are some comments below that you have "yet to apologize for [your] actions" with respect to the situation that led to the desysopping. Can you provide diffs (ideally from relatively close to the time of that case) that show your reaction to the ruling, and any communications you made that would shed light on your opinion of your own actions?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for here. Blocking Giano and El C was a mistake, which I've said several times in emails to people. For the most part, though, I haven't thought about it or discussed it on Wikipedia; I've been busy with other things.

For people who want some form of accountability from me, I agree that if four ArbCom members feel that I should no longer be an admin, I will resign my adminship. Additionally, I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand.

(Optional) question from Anomo

5. I noticed you were de-admined for a wheel war as mentioned in Request_for_de-adminship. How can you demonstrate you will not repeat this?

I was de-admined for blocking other editors; I did not wheel war. As I noted above, I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand.

I only know what the page said. I do not know the whole story. Would you explain it and then explain how you have demonstrated that you have moved passed it and will not repeat it? Anomo 02:29, 2 December 2099 (UTC)

(Optional) question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

6. Hi Candidate1, please respond to the following if you would: In your previous Rfa bid, PedanticallySpeaking raised a very valid point [1] regarding the nature of the vast majority of your contributions to Wikipedia. I see all this praise from all camps regarding your "great work". Apart from your self-appointed duty as the number one image copyright cop, and running a copyright robo cop which removes images from articles, what have you really done to make this project richer in terms of actual CONTENT? How many articles have you started or expanded from mere stubs? Have you been anywhere near at least one FA? Thanks for your time --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:27, 4 December 2099 (UTC)

I've started or significantly expanded about two dozen articles, I've uploaded about 40 free-licensed images to Commons, about a dozen to Wikipedia, and I've got several dozen other images that haven't been processed for uploading yet. I've also got a watchlist of 1200+ pages that I keep an eye on for vandalism or edits that need cleaning up. If you haven't seen any additive contributions to Wikipedia from me, that just means you haven't been looking very hard.

Comments

See Candidate1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
List of RfAs of desysopped admins.

Final: (112/71/11)

Support

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 18 August 2099 (UTC) Nominator's vote added by Musical Linguist so that tally will be correct
This is bound to be a controversial RFA, but everyone deserves a chance, so support. – Ch acor 03:05, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support per Chacor. «ct» (t|e) 03:07, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
--SB | T 03:09, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. I believe the incident for which he was desysopped was a gross error in judgment. However, I have seen nothing but civil and professional behavior from Candidate1 since, even in the face of the great deal of abuse he gets for running OrphanBot. I agree with UninvitedCompany's nomination statement: he does valuable work for which the admin tools would be very useful, and I have no reason to expect any similar lapses in judgment in the future. I am hesitant as a matter of form to voice an opinion in the RfA of someone I had a hand in desysopping, but I would like to state this publicly; desysopping is not intended to be a permanent measure for an otherwise good user who can regain the community's trust, and I think it is not too soon to reextend that trust to Candidate1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Candidate1 is a real asset to the project. No reason for us to go without his admin work for some indefinite longer period of time. Jkelly
I think of myself as rather intolerant of malfeasance, and I was very disappointed at the wheelwarring that transpired during this incident, but I have nothing but admiration for someone who works hard at a thankless task like that carried out by OrphanBot for a very long time with little fanfare, just getting the job done... and for someone who would be brave enough to stand for adminship again, putting themselves in front of the community, in what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time. That's the sort of attitude we need among admins. '~~Hearty~~ ~~weak support'~~ ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I have responded to this vote here [2]. Giano | talk 17:37, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
You'll want to view the whole thread, as there are further responses from myself and others there. I admit I find the block log damaging: [3] and am concerned that (apparently, but see Mike's Q#4, as yet unanswered) no remorse has been expressed. Expressing it now may be a bit late to the game. Changed support to weak. I still at this point think this user on balance would benefit the 'pedia, but I'm wavering. ArbCom members supporting... that means a lot I think. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Changed to neutral pending satisfactory answer to Q4. ++Lar: t/c 11:21, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong support; one incident does not a person make. Ral315 (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, per Mindspillage and Lar.-gadfium 04:21, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support per Chacor. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:28, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support 90% because of his excellent work in the notoriously thorny area of image deletion and 10% as an anti-hyperbole measure. One instance of bad judgment during an apparently contagious outbreak of bad judgment is not "destroying" anything. Opabinia regalis 04:41, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support I supported him once and I will support him again. Everyone makes mistakes and to condemn a former admin for his past mistakes incessantly would really demoralize any Wikipedian. I acknowledge that he had made mistakes in the past. Does that mean that he will never be able to gain his adminship for the resr of his time being spent in this project. Moreover, he is very, very unlikely to repeat those mistakes. If we disallow a former admin from ever gaining his admin duties because of past mistakes, every administrator in this project will be living in constant fear of erring due to some reasons. Just look at Chacor's (formarly NSLE) past contributions as a case in point. We as Wikipedians must learn to forgive, although I do not necessary mean forget, one's behaviour in this project. Yes, the user's violations of policy is inexcusable, but is it unforgivable? Time is a great healing tool in these cases. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:47, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
It's not just time that matters. How about remorse? Without it, that's a sign of a likely repeat offence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:56, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. I hope it goes through. You deserve a second chance. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:53, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support One grave mistake, in an affair in which everybody behaved poorly, does not obliterate an otherwise stellar wiki-career. He deserves the mop, and we'll be better for it. Xoloz 05:03, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I did not behave "poorly". Why are you insinuating I did? Giano | talk 17:31, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support as per Mindspillage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:11, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support --Ixfd64 07:42, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong support per Mindspillage. The returning of his adminship is overdue. OrphanBot is an extremely useful contribution to wikipedia. Great user (barring the silliness back in February). DarthVad e r 07:52, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, we need his help. Kusma (討論) 08:18, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. He's served his time, has stayed around to help the project, and does good work. Easy decision. --kingboyk 08:43, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. He's been around for a long time. Mostly Rainy 08:47, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. I've read through the case at the center of the controversy. It's not pretty, but he/she has certainly been helpful in the past when I've encountered him/her (image related instances). I would like to see him/her have a second chance! InvictaHOG 09:12, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Because he is deserved as a administrator or sysop of Wikipedia Joseph Solis 09:25, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support does invaluable work. Time has passed since his mistake, and has had already to go through the undignified process of desysopping and a failed RFA. The maturity he has demonstrated by responding calmly, and continuing his hard work (some have turned into a vandal, Annakin Skywalker style, for far less). I hope that, like AFD, the quality of comments will be assessed when closing this RFA, rather than merely statistical: many of the oppose votes come from people who have violated copyright, or can not be bothered to follow simple instructions in the upload process. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:43, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support should have had it restored last time around. Despite all the controversy and losing admin status, has consistently kept working in a difficult and contentious area, which is ultimately of great benefit to wikipedia. --pgk^(talk) 11:01, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Merovingian - Talk 12:24, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support Candidate1 has done invaluable work for Wikipedia. The fact that he has continued to make invaluable contributions to the project after making a terrible mistake, being desysopped and being soundly rejected for re-admining six months ago shows me his commitment to Wikipedia. Given the wheel war incident, there is little doubt that plenty of people will be wathcing his progress and any hint of such behavior would result in immediate action by the commmunity. We have to be prepared to forgive one shameful incident, recognize how much Candidate1 has given and has to give and give him the mop back. Gwernol 12:50, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, per nomination. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support per Lar, The JPS and Gwernol. In the six months since he was desysoped, Candidate1 has shown sound judgement and great dedication to the project. In his response to the parade of nasty comments he gets from inexperience users about OrphanBot, he shows impressive patience and civility. Candidate1 will be an even greater asset to the community with admin tools, and I am confident he will not abuse them. ×Meegs 13:21, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. - Bobet 13:22, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. I prefer not to mince words and call the userbox incident a "mistake", as a mistake is something you do accidentally. That was an error in judgement, but one that I don't think the candidate should be held to account for forever. Candidate1 does terrific work in copyright, and we need more admins in this area. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, per Uninvited Co.'s nom. and the above comments. Most of what comes to mind has been said already. Syrthiss 13:50, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support (despite my almost ignoring RfA now that's it's gotten so friggin' complicated). At this point, it's pretty much a moral support. I don't agree with his actions that caused him to be desysopped in the first place, but that one thing doesn't mean he should have the sysop flag off permanently. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong support. --CharlotteWebb 13:57, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support per Siva1979. Rama's arrow 14:02, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, I believe in second chances and it has been 6 months.--Andeh 14:24, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, I think that uninvited's nomination is worth the consideration, and second chances are possible. User learned his lesson? Give him the opportunity to prove it. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:03, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. I'm confident that Candidate1 can be trusted with the tools, and I find his behavior after the desysoping instructive: he kept right on working, helping the encyclopedia. I find many of the opposes below ridiculous: people who hate OrphanBot, people who refuse to forgive. I'm prepared to give him a second chance. Furthermore, looking at the supports above, it appears that the Arbitration Committee is prepared to trust him, and that says a lot. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Every Wikipedian has the right to participate and for his/her opinion to be respected and valued by the community. Also, since this is a discussion, it's good to have multiple perspectives. If you wish to discuss some of the reasons for opposition, I invite you to, but please help the discussion remain constructive and refrain from using insulting labels hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 16:06, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support once again, shouldn't have lost it. Also the troll factor observation by Mackensen is right on the money. —freak(talk) 15:21, Aug. 29, 2099 (UTC)
Support per Mackensen, Uninvited and Mindspillage. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support - per Uninvited. I think Candidate1 has done enough to regain trust.- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 16:17, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, one ugly incident is forgivable. Candidate1's obviously committed to enforcing Wikipedia policy, as evidenced by a handful of the oppose votes below. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strongly Support Candidate1 is one of out best in images for over an year, and there are some bad backogs than ever before in there. His OrphanBot does amazing things. One incident is forgivable. A must for adminship. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:01, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, one incident doesn't outweigh the shedload of good work he does. —Xezbeth 17:05, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Benefits outweigh risks. He has had 6 months to mend his ways. I've come across his edits from time to time and believe his judgement is sound. Hopefully, he will step back and gain consensus from other admins before blocking anyone but an obvious vandal. From the "oppose" rationales below, it looks like this civil war continues on a lower scale. May I perhaps respectfully suggest that the residual bitterness is clouding judgment? Let's leave the past in the past and look forward to the future benefits this candidate can bring to an area desperate for attention. I believe his answer to question 3 shows he understands and respects the views of others and that he his able to carry out difficult work in a dignified and respectful manner. The only images in danger are those that violate policy. These images need to go regardless of how any of us feel about them. I give anyone credit for undertaking as unpleasant and unpopular task as this. Regardless of the outcome of this, I applaud his efforts and urge him to continue. :) Dlohcierekim 17:44, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. It's time to put the userbox mess behind us for good. With WP:GUS, I believe it is unlikely that things will escalate to that level again in the foreseeable future. Scobell302 17:55, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, it is time for a second chance, being a full six months later. I expressed the view during the case that ArbCom desysoppings may become forever irreversable if sent through the RfA process. At some point I hope to be proven wrong, due to the long term implications of that result. Now would be a good time to prove me wrong. NoDecember 18:04, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear he would have succeeded the last time if he had just been willing to admit he made a mistake and apologize. Most people can forgive one even major mistake, especially given the other great contributions. So this one not being a shoe in doesn't have anything to do with the arbcom desyssopping, but his unwillingness or inability to accept that he made a mistake. - Taxman ^Talk 18:41, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Well, there are always special circumstances in every case, but the overall record of reapplications continues to be abysmal. NoDecember 19:02, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
You're correct, but another possibility is that a majority of admins who were desysoped were unfit to be admins. Guanaco was desysoped a second time, Freestylefrappe created several disruptive accounts and Karmafist has been community banned/unbanned several times. The fact that their re-RfAs didn't succeed isn't that surprising. SuperMachine 19:15, 29 August 2099 (UTC)

Agreed. I think more than anything else that means they did the right thing. - Taxman ^Talk 19:25, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Candidate1 has done his penance. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Few admins have taken half the flak he has taken due to his work in images. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 18:36, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Candidate1's work with images is valuable. Now that several months have passed since that incident, he should be allowed to regain use of the tools in order to carry out his image copyright work more effectively. Oldelpaso 18:53, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Image copyright stuff is a pain in the ass, and we could use the help. Plus, as nom says, it was a one-time lapse in judgement, and long in the past now. Mango juice^talk 19:09, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Was among the best. His perseverance (says a burned-out former admin) is deeply admirable. Chick Bowen 20:22, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Burn out?! He was an admin less than 6 months before Jimbo and the Arbcomm found it necessary to DeOp him. So your main criterion for adminship, seems to be how stubborn and hard headed a candidate is. By that (ill)logic, I agree that you could hardly find a more suitable candidate.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:03, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per Kelly Martin. I doubt he would do similar things again. —Khoikhoi 20:53, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support I strongly opposed the desysopping, having thought, inter al., the disruption attendant to Candidate1's actions to have been de minimis, and offered the first support at the second RfA, in which support I termed Candidate1 an excellent Wikipedian in whom I was altogether happy to repose trust. Inasmuch as the latter is, consistent with my RfA guidelines, the sole criterion on which I base RfA decisions—codified generally as whether I think it more likely than not that the net effect on the project of a user's being an admin will be positive—I must support, but I am a bit disconcerted that Candidate1 devotes a good bit of his time to supporting the third of our five pillars, viz., that the encyclopedia ought to be freely distributable and that Wikipedia ought never to infringe on copyright; many of us, of course, continue to believe that images ought to be dealt with on an individual basis, such that we ought always to contravene copyright law where it is eminently unlikely that legal action will entail in view of our infringement, and I cannot understand why one would think extant policy to be correct (to be sure, though, Candidate1 is quite right to say that OrphanBot acts consistent with extant policy and toward the indemnification of the Foundation, but I rather think one might better spend time advocating for our enacting different policies). Joe 21:04, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support - No doubts. -- Szvest 21:21, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. After vacillating a bit on my lingering doubts about Candidate1 concerning the rashness of action and resulting rancor and ill-will generated during the contentious times which resulted in the ArbCom sanction. The facts are that Candidate1's vast amount of beneficial work outweighs his controversial role in the wheel warring that occurred regarding the retrospectively minor issue of a type of user box. Absolutely unattractive behaviour from some of the active participants that day, to be certain. I am also certain that Candidate1's future work when re-instated will be most closely scrutinized by interested Wikipedians at large, and affected parties in particular. Safe as milk, IMHO. Hamster Sandwich 21:22, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
EXTREME IMAGE-DELETING SUPPORT seriously, this user is my "go-to guy" on image copyright questions, and contrary to some experiences said here has been very helpful to me anyway. RN 21:31, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support Generally well respected edits and actions. Rich Farmbrough 21:36 29 August 2099 (GMT).
Support. I think we should stop punishing a very good editor for making an error of judgement in a situation from which, in my opinion, nobody came out well. I think Candidate1 will make very good use of the tools, and his behaviour since being desysoped has been nothing short of exemplary. Candidate1 should be let out of the dog-house, a bad call shouldn't hang over him forever. Rje 22:27, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support What is past is past. Candidate1 shows nothing other than dedication to the project. He made a mistake in the past; let's let him make it up now. I'll give a word of warning, though: the ArbCom will not look kindly on a repeat. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:35, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway 23:20, 29 August 2099 (UTC) Good chap.
Support. Lets not extend the desysoping to "punish" him over an action. Remember that the main question is "will he use the tools reasonably". The pedophile userbox incident was an exeptional, diving issue, and while he should not have done what he did, I think he will avoid such things in the future.Voice-of-All 23:26, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I trust him. I appreciate orphanbot. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:30, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support I see no reason to think he'll cause more problems than he'll do good - quite the opposite. --Doc 23:38, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support - There is so much work to be done in image copyright verification, deleting images which are invalid for use on Wikipedia and they are consistently backlogged for 5 days with 3000-5000 pictures on the queue. Because OrphanBot does basically all of the tagging, most people aren't familiar with the image deletion policy and the backlogs fill up because OrphanBot isn't allowed to delete. eg, Kimchi.sg aka Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh has deleted 16000 things in two months as an admin (mostly pics) and the other day I did ~550-600. The vast majority of people and dare I say it admins here aren't familiar with the image policies or what is invalid fair use. As for the comment that there are other suitable candidates out there that can do the job, I disagree, it is always the same 10 people deleting the images. Candidate1 is a must for Wikipedia, unless the opposing admins below suddenly make a commitment to delete images and hunt down inappropriate fair use images or orphaned fair use images, which doesn't seem likely. What he does, others are unwilling, are unable or can't be bothered doing- so his one mistake must be balanced up against his rare ability. As for his refusal to apologise, well, if we had a regular admin review, then a lot of admins could be knocked off under that criteria. Blnguyen | rant-line 23:56, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Support A candidate I respect immensely. I have confidence in his judgement despite the issues mentioned here. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:38, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Support - Continued whining & complaining from certain individuals goes against everything I believe RfA stands for. If certain individuals want to rehash old wounds once more and decry Candidate1 as the most evil villain on the face of the wikisphere, then that is their problem. But at the end of the day what's done is done, the storm has passed, and it is time to rebuild. --Jay(Reply) 01:00, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
I trust you are not implying that anyone who opposes this nomination is a whiner and complainer. Agent 86 03:46, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Correct. --Jay(Reply) 17:19, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Sam Korn has given me the excuse I needed to Support. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:35, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
~~Neutral leaning Support~~. Bouts of stupidity per fuddlemark are not a bar to adminship per se - but I would like to hear a more coherent statement of what went wrong, why it went wrong, and how the candidate is planning to be accountable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
To clarify my thinking on this, since it seems there is great demand here for the nominee to give assurances, I will support if the nominee either imposes on himself some sort of probation, which will give clear guidance to the ArbCom in the event of recidivism, or submits himself to recall, as part of the category or otherwise, on his own terms. Give us something to allow us to support you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:44, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Hopefully we can set a precedent that people desyssoped by ArbCom can rehabilitate themselves. While no apology seems to have been forthcoming for the pedophile issue I think it's time to move on. The Land 10:06, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Axiomm 12:23, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Note information at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Axiomm. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. Candidate1 did a big time blunder, but his work is good and he used his admin tools for more good than harm in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:22, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. --Kbdank71 19:49, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support A dedicated, responsible user who has made one mistake. Both Candidate1 and her bot deserve the mop. Borisblue 00:24, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Candidate1 is male, not female. 17:19, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
I'll respond to either, though. --Candidate1 01:08, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
SupportThough I never saw the incident happen I can only assume that it was a one time mistake. Invaluable contributor to Wikipedia, everyone deserves a second chance.Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:22, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. I think he's done penance enough, and is appropriately remorseful. I imagine that all the time wasted because of the pedophilia thing will have taught him his lesson. :) --maru (talk) contribs 03:16, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support - He has redeemed himself. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:02, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support, fair to give people a second chance, per all above. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 06:57, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support He has "done his time", and I doubht the is any risk of repeat offenses as it was a very unusual case. My personal experience with this user is nothing but positive, and we rely need more admins working on image and copyright related problems that know what they are doing. --Sherool (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support He's invaluable in image issues, which is a tough, thankless job. He manages to be moderately polite about it, which is probably very hard after the first hundred complaints in a given day. The Pedophilia userboxing was silly, and he was properly desysopped for it, but he has done his time, without making a big fuss about it, which was also likely very hard. Per CrzRussian I'd be happier if he added himself to the "admins for recall" category, but that's not specific to him, I'd be happier if most admins did so; I won't insist on it. I see there is some serious, reasoned, opposition to his re-adminning, and some "he deleted my image!" -- "so I was blocked six times, I still want to disrupt some more!" opposition, and hope that the bureaucrat manages to distinguish between the two. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:32, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support - everyone deserves a second chance. --Conti|✉ 14:10, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support - great worker. deserves the admin tools to do more work! --Abu Badali 16:15, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:47, 31 August 2099}
Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:27, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support Need more admins. Haukur 21:24, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Support Changing from neutral. The user made one set of mistakes, since then he has continued to be a productive editor without any issues. Compared to how the other desysopped admin reacted he has been a model of self-restraint and hard work since then. As long as he understands not to use his tools in a controversial or out of process manner we will be fine. JoshuaZ 02:51, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per Mindspillage and my support last time. Candidate1 deserves a second chance. BryanG^(talk) 02:59, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Changed from neutral. Although Candidate1's answer to Q4 does not show any evidence on Wikipedia of his opinion of his actions, it does assert that he understands it was a mistake. I see no reason to disbelieve him, particularly as he says he will discuss blocks before implementing them. That seems to me to remove the greatest potential for a problem. In addition, he sets a bar for desysopping which is lower than for most admins. I'm also not clear that there's much more he could do to earn a second chance than he's already done. Given the very clear use he could make of the admin bit, and the real value to Wikipedia of giving him that bit, I'm switching to support. Mike Christie (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - I was unaware of the wheel-warring until just now. As aggregious as that lapse in judgment was, Candidate1 simply does too much good work to be overlooked. This project is drowning in a sea of dodgy images, and Candidate1 has shown the dedication and ability to make a real difference. He takes more crap in one day than most of us take in a year, and handles it as well as can be expected. That being said, I feel it would be wise for other admins to keep a close watch on Candidate1's actions should this nomination succeed, at least for a little while. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:43, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, of course. We should look at the desysopping as a reset button - he recieved his punnishment and attoned for his significant mistake - and look at his actions since then. Enough time has passed and the candidate has proven to be decidedly admin worthy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:11, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Shell ^babelfish 15:17, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, following a credible answer to question 4. I am persuaded that the benefit to the project from giving Candidate1 back sysop rights, in particular in the area of image copyright, outweighs the potential disbenefit. I don't see much likelihood of another userbox wheel war anyway, and Candidate1 was far from being the only one to get carried away. I reiterate my hope that the closing 'crat will have the sense to ignore any opposiiton based on OrphanBot, which is (whether the uploaders like it or not) of crucial importance in the fight not to get our asses sued by a disgruntled copyright holder or opportunistic IP lawyer. I also agree with Mindspillage that he demonstrates almost daily an ability to handle trolling of the most egregious kind, generally with complete equanimity. Just zis Guy you know? 16:55, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support (switched from nuetral) admission that blocking was mistaken and undertaking to take issues to WP:AN/I, combined with time eleapsed and excellent work on images gives me confidence to support. Eluchil404 17:24, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. He's overdue for a second chance. --TantalumTelluride 19:15, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support The absence of remorse is troubling but the key is whether he will misbehave again. I find the commitment to discuss blocks on the admin noticeboard to be a sufficient safeguard. --Spartaz 19:58, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - He acknowledges his mistake, and I see no reason to expect him to repeat it. Admin tools would let him be more helpful to the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:14, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - Seems to me that the image work overrides past mistakes. Catchpole 23:11, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, solely because he's done more and better work in images than anyone else on Wikipedia, and he could do more with the buttons back. He has agreed not to block anybody without discussion, and acknowledges that he made a mistake, and we could really use him back. Everyone deserves a second chance, especially users as helpful as this one. --Rory096 00:21, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Support not much else left to say here.--digital_m e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 00:29, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. You mean he isn't one? Wow. 1ne 01:33, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. For a willingness to do the dirty work, and for the character to continue doing it after it blows up in his face. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:43, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. As a de-sysoped admin, he must have learned of his mistake. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:34, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Support everyone deserves a second chance, and the work on images really needs all the help it can get!--Konstable 12:35, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. I may not always agree with him, but he's doing extremely valuable work with image tagging. If there's anyone who needs the mop, it's him. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Extremly valuable on Wikipedia. He probably learned his lesson now, maybe it's time to turn the page and see him go back in the hard-working administrators ranks. --Deenoe 01:02, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Support In spite of the initially poor answer to Q3 , I think the answer to Q4 is evidence that he has learned from the incident. We need people who can enforce image policies. --Guinnog 03:16, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Support He does a very good job and adminship would help him in this. I believe he learned from his past mistake and is more responsible now. Jecowa 14:55, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak SupportI've read this users criticisms and I'm not convienced he won't be a great administrator SOADLuver 16:25, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Support in view of answers above. Dlyons493 Talk 16:49, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. It is time to move on. He shows dedication to the project and has acknowledged the mistake and says he will not repeat former actions. He does valuable work with image policy and can well use the tools.--Dakota 23:29, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Candidate1 is a very productive user whos productivity has been hurt by a exceptional mistake of Arbcom... where they acted punitively rather than preventative, in contrast with their stated purpose. Frankly the community has no business denying Candidate1 adminship, but it just wouldn't be like us to avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face. Also, it's taking great restraint for me to avoid going through and visably striking comments that mention the bot, or which have come from users with a history of copyright abuse... God forbid we have an admin who helps us execute the policy and practice of Wikipedia to better conform with our stated goal of free content and with the law... --Gmaxwell 05:29, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. None of the oppose votes was based on uncivil comment or improper behaviour since his previous RFA, which makes me think he has learned to stay cool. Nevertheless past problems, I like giving people a second chance. -- ReyBrujo 13:05, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Six months is long enough. He has shown good judgement since. --rogerd 18:54, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Support He has made good contributions to the Wikipedia and I believe he will do good as an admin. Hello32020 01:20, 5 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Danny 02:48, 5 December 2099 (UTC)

Oppose

From my limited (singular) and spectacularly negative experience: Unrepentant and unremorseful, unpredictable and impuslive, unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, disrespectful and as offensive as any user I've ever met on the wiki. Untrustworthy. If you wish to discuss the above comment with me, please use this RfA's talk page, not my user talk page and not a threaded conversation bellow this. El_C 08:19, 24 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose I've never met nor even seen the candidate before, but after looking at the situation that led to Candidate1 being de-sysopped, I don't think that Wikipedia would be better off giving this user any abilities beyond that of a registered user. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:15, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Are you at all aware of his extensive work with images? How much time and effort his bot and his actions have saved? How often he's been instrumental in enforcing our copyright policies? If you were, I highly doubt that you would say that Wikipedia wouldn't be better off with Candidate1 as an admin.--SB | T 03:22, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I snuck a peek at Candidate1's talk page before weighing in, and from that, I was able to see how involved in image maintenence he is (I was also made aware of his bot through his talk page). My opposition is just one man's opinion and I'll stick to it for now, but I appreciate you taking the time out to comment, Sean! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:53, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
There are about 10 admins who do basically all of the image work. Most admins don't seem to be remotely confident with image deletion policy or identifying incorrect usage of fair use material - or can't be bothered doing any image work. Wikipedia will be far better off with him as an admin, as there are wrongly claimed/used fair use images all over the place - like screenshots being used to protray the actors/artists rather than the movie itself, etc. Blnguyen | rant-line 23:56, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Michael 03:26, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose This user's violations of policy are inexcusable. He has yet to apologize for his actions, and frankly his bot is the most destructive thing on this encyclopedia. In addition, he is rude and condescending, the opposite of what an admin should be. ^juppiter talk #c 03:36, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oh, bollocks. I mean, I slip into hyperbole below, but ... bollocks. I gather you've uploaded a few dodgy images in your time and been upset with the response? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 03:38, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
You like Candidate1. I do not. Doesn't mean you have to harass me and belittle my opinions. Kthx. ^juppiter talk #c
Oh, I remember you... aren't you the user that vandalised OrphanBot's pages, repeatedly? Then got nasty about it when you got blocked over it and so got your block extended? Perhaps you've improved since then though. I can certainly see why you might not totally agree that this editor does good work. ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Who's the one being nasty now? I'm not the one being nominated for adminship here, I don't see why my past is relevant to this topic at all. Anyway, I will not defend my vote anymore... any further discussion on the subject will be ignored by me. ^juppiter talk #c 06:42, 29 August 2099 (UTC) (amazed at how low some will stoop)
This isn't a vote. It's a search for consensus. I think your past is highly relevant and I'm demonstrating that your standing to comment is badly tainted by your past actions. That's not being nasty... Nasty is vandalising the page of a poor defenseless bot, repeatedly. It's not stooping low either... Stooping low is calling for OTHERS to vandalise the page of that bot after you got blocked for it. Please note: There are a lot of editors I highly respect speaking out against Candidate1's nomination, and their words ought to carry weight with others who haven't made up their minds yet. I'm not sure you are one of them though, unless you've changed greatly. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
If this isn't a vote, why do we have numbers before each person's comment? Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 22:35, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Lar, Mark, you don't need to defend yourselves here. Whether this vote should be treated as a good faith one or not is fairly obvious to anyone now that the facts are out. - Taxman ^Talk 18:41, 29 August 2099 (UTC)

So my past keeps me from being able to comment on RFAs, but Candidate1's past can be forgotten and he can be given admin powers? Huh?!?! ^juppiter talk #c 19:58, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
No, it's just that your obvious history with respect to OrphanBot means that your input in this RfA might be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. I thought that was pretty clear from the above. JzG 17:07, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Again, huh?!?! I have a bad history with him.... that's why i voted oppose. Isn't that what you do?! Would somebody who went to high school with Candidate1 and voted support also have his vote discounted? Juppiter 17:20, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Mark's work with image copyright has been fantastic, and he's a great asset to the project. However, his blocking of Giano, El_C and Carbonite in the paedophilia userbox incident was quite possibly the worst thing that any admin could have done in the circumstances, and he did it without blushing. That sort of unthinking stupidity is quite worrying, and not something I'd like to see in an administrator. Might change to support if he can assure me he doesn't intend to use the blocking tool or, better yet, do anything stupid in future. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 03:38, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose for bringing Wikipedia the closest it has ever been to total and complete destruction, explicit lack of remorse in the subsequent RfA, and I just don't trust him not to carry on his private war. A justified, preventative emergency desysopping. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:44, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose I read Kat's support and felt inclined to perhaps support or be neutral, however, I read the Arbcom case and the previous RfA; and my confidence has been completely shattered. Most of my oppose is per Mark and CanadianCaesar, I'm just stunned and can't support. Yank sox 03:46, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong Oppose As per above and my comments from the candidate's previous Rfa. He still demonstrates no remorse, except that he lost his SysOp's mop in the first place. His bravery is actually arrogance. Give him his powers back and he will be even moreso. Besides, no one has yet made a compelling case as to why he really needs the Op Mop to be the number one copyright cop. Especially not with Orphanbot doing most of his grunt work. Adminship is a duty and trust, not a reward. If you want to reward him, give him a cookie or a barnstar. But he has proven himself untrustworthy and simply not worth the risk. See Guanaco for instance.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:27, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per ~~above~~ CanadianCaesar, Kirill and w.marsh. Will continue to oppose until an apology and remedial action is forthcoming. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong oppose. We are not so hard up for new admins that we must hand the bit back to someone who has yet to show the slightest shred of remorse for the actions that caused him to lose it in the first place. To have merely his word that the incident would not be repeated (although he has not offered even this!) would be insufficient; I am of the opinion that we cannot even consider giving the mop to him again until he acknowledges that his actions were wrong—and not merely because they failed. Kirill Lokshin 09:40, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong oppose- no image would be safe if this user had admin powers. Astrotrain 10:33, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
What a bizarre comment, Candidate1 had admin powers for a long time and we still have lots of images. If you mean images tagged incorrectly got deleted, then that continues regardless of this editor's admin status. If you want images to be "safe", tag them properly and only use fair use within the bounds of the fair use policy. --pgk^(talk)
Surely a joke. I delete lots of images that his bot tags. There are tons of incorrectly used "fair use" stuff around which nobody knows how to or can't be bothered cleaning up. Candidate1 is one of the rare exceptions.

Blnguyen | rant-line 23:56, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't trust Candidate1's judgement enough to support returning the admin tools and, as Kirill says, there is no shortage of other, more suitable, candidates. Leith p 12:30, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I think that you should look at the deletion log and see how many guys understand and practice proper image deletion polcicy. Usually 10-12 guys do all the deletes and very few people understand the circumstances under which something is fair use or not. Blnguyen | rant-line 23:56, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I don't dispute Candidate1's understanding of the image deletion policy, what I do dispute is his/her understanding of the blocking policy and everything else that goes with being an admin. Bishonen gives a perfect example below of why I think this user is unsuited to being an admin. Leith p 08:49, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Candidate1's works to OrphanBot is awesome, but as for adminship, I don't think so. Good editor really, but I'm sceptical of granting this user tools again. Oppose per Kirill Lokshin and R.D.H Ghost in the Machine. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 12:52, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per Juppiter and the follow up on his vote. Yankee Rajput 13:06, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
So you are opposing, at least in part, because another user, not even Candidate1, exposed previous abuses relevant to this case? RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:19, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
No, I was only going to vote oppose per only Juppiter's opinion, which I agree with. The "Strong" part was from harrassment towards him, such as you may be doing to me now. Bullies tend to flock together, I don't like bullies, and putting questions like that immediately after votes I consider to be bullying. Yankee Rajput 16:15, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Juppiter vandalized and attacked Candidate1, so bringing that up when Juppiter opposes Candidate1's RfA is not harrassment. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:24, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. I read the arbitration case in full and was horrified. What's more disturbing is that this user has not offered any apology whatsoever for his actions. Additionally, looking over his/her 50 most recent edits, I counted thirty three edits with no edit summary (other than occasionally /* whatever section the edit was in here */, which does not count). Srose (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I haven't decided how (or if) I'll vote, but I'd like to point out that the purpose of an edit summary is to tell people what change you've made to an article (or a template or a user page). There is no special necessity to put "added a comment" or "stated my opinion" in the edit summary for a talk page, as people can usually guess that that's what you did. Candidate1's last fifty edits to articles have 100% edit summaries. AnnH ♫ 16:00, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe that it's not too much to ask for an editor to simply type "reply" in an edit summary when commenting in a discussion; everyone else does it. It seems like a lack of effort, and it'd be nice to see a preview for what he has to say - if he could just offer a little overview in his summary, like "agree" or "disagree" or "my opinion". Additionally, my major reason for opposition was the first one I stated. Srose (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, for what purpose? To me, this demand seems like nothing other than another arbitrary, useless and anal demand so RfA-dwellers can objectively carry out what is an inherently subjective discussion. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:35, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Wow. I'm not entirely sure I wish to respond to this uncivil comment. And could we WP:AGF? "Arbitrary, useless, and anal"? I do not think that asking for an apology to the users he obviously wronged is "arbitrary, useless, and anal". The major issue in supporting a candidate for adminship is trust. I cannot trust someone who indefinitely blocked established users and shows no remorse for it (Question 4 is still unanswered, and I am deeply concerned by Candidate1's previously mentioned response to concerns about his indef blocking of established users previously - "no big deal"). Edit summaries are one of my personal standards, but the edit summary issue is a minor complaint here, especially compared to my other concern. If I felt I could trust this user, I could and would easily forgive the lack of talk edit summaries. To the main issue, though, I will not support a candidate who has already abused the admin tools and has not apologized for it in six months. If you review my RFA voting record (and my contributions, for that matter), you will see that I am a very level-headed and civil user. I do not appreciate your less than civil accusations and hope that my explanation (my third explanation) has put your concerns to rest. Srose (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2099 (UTC)

~~Strong Oppose~~: I was one of the people he wrongly, unjustly, nastily and spitefully blocked for hate speech. Never once for one instant has he apologised or intimated to me that he regretted his actions. As far as I can see he would do the same again to some one else the second it took his fancy to do so. No one should have to risk being so accused and blocked again by an editor who is arrogant enough to return here without even attempting to make amends. Giano | talk 16:09, 29 August 2099 (UTC)

I believe the block was unjustified and incorrectly labeled. I think it should be expunged. Currently as I understand it, that requires direct developer intervention. If anyone reading this thinks it might be a good idea for functionality to be added to allow that to be done by trusted folk (stewards perhaps, or a special bit like oversight) please consider commenting in reply to this post on VP [4], thanks ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
No, we should not start expunging blocks. If a block was truly improper, the blocked user can save the links to the discussions at WP:ANI or elsewhere that clears them in case the issue ever comes up again. We have all sorts of false accusations on talk pages too, we don't delete those either. NoDecember 12:27, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Per Srose. If the candidate would offer a good response to (Optional) question from Mike Christie above, I might change my view on this. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:07, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Comment The lack of response to the optional question #4 presented by Mike bothers me. This candidate has had plenty of time to respond to this, but kept on editing instead. No remorse, no concern of addressing our anxiety of possible repeat offences. That says enough for me. Not good. JungleCat talk/contrib 12:41, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Comment I have looked at the candidate's response to the opt qustion from Mike. User said that he didn't really have time to think about it on Wikipedia - "too busy". That issue should have been addressed here, not just by emails. Sorry, not changing my Oppose view. JungleCat talk/contrib 12:27, 1 December 2099 (UTC)

oppose to me at least, an ugly incident is only forgiveable if someone admits they were wrong and promises it won't happen again. I'm surprised how many are supporting given that there apparently have been no such assurances offered. --W.marsh 17:31, 29 August 2099 (UTC) Switching to neutral. --W.marsh 14:43, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose He already abused his admin powers once. PPGMD 17:54, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. His unwillingness to admit he made a mistake, even though that was what seemed to me to be the biggest thing that caused his last nomination to fail, is a problem. It represents that either he is unwilling to admit mistakes or doesn't think he did anything wrong. Both are a problem for having admin tools. I am more than willing to forgive and forget, as Candidate1 does amazing and very important work, but not if he can't reallize what he did was egregious. Of course, the problem is he has had a ton of time to do that and hasn't. It would be tough to demonstrate sincerity now. - Taxman ^Talk 18:41, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. In a situation like this, it helps to go back to first principles. Those principles are trust (as set out above in the introduction to RfA, and includes having high standards) and need (by implication of the first standard question). On the issue of need, I am satisfied the nominee meets that criterion. However, on the issue of trust, I am not so convinced. The fact that there are a significant number of editors who feel like that trust has been broken speaks volumes. It is almost always possible to re-establish trust, it just takes time and effort. While time has elapsed, I don't see the effort. The nominee should have addressed the issue head on; instead, there is silence. Agent 86 19:01, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose: Having read up on the situation, I just can't justify supporting. It's nothing I have against this editor, but as many have already observed, he hasn't shown any remorse for his actions. I don't believe that merely "doing time", so to speak, is enough for one to earn back trust; one really needs to actually show that one regrets what one has done and that one won't do it again. Heimstern Läufer 19:07, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per his actions and per above. G.H e 19:44, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. In arguing with my Oppose vote six months ago in Candidate1 2, Candidate1 spoke of blocking in a way I found amazing, and there's nothing--nothing whatever--on this page suggesting that he has changed his thinking about what a block is and does and how it affects people. Please excuse me if I quote rather than link, I just do think what Candidate1 said then needs to be read.
- I imposed a block and made a few hastily-worded statements. The block was reverted within ten minutes, and the statements were mostly ignored. I'd feel regret if the consequences had been more significant, but I don't see how a heated opinion and a few minutes of not being able to edit Wikipedia is worth agonizing over. --Candidate1 01:08, 22 March 2099 (UTC)
- Ignored? Surely you must be aware of how far from ignored they were by the people they were directed at. One of the people you blocked, El C, was desysopped in consequence of his outraged reaction to your block and your block reason. Another, Giano, as you can see, still feels insulted and upset at the way you described him. There was a human cost. I'm sorry to see you counting only the arithmetic: a few minutes of not being able to edit. Bishonen 23:56, 21 March 2099 (UTC)
I appreciate and admire Candidate1's thankless image work, but I won't support giving the block button back to someone with that view of what it does. I don't see myself as "overfocused on apologies"[5]--on the contrary--there's too much insincere apologizing going on in this place--but Candidate1 still hasn't made any attempt at any kind of bridge-building with the people he blocked. And I still don't see any sign that he knows what blocking is--what it means, what it does. That a block affects people, shocks them, insults them. Or, for instance, that the block reason is also important--it's not to be worded hastily--that people are vulnerable to it. Giano and El C now have block logs that say "hate speech". That comes down to "not being able to edit for a few minutes"? Typing it, I feel the same incredulity as in March: did he really say that? Yes, he really did. It was a long time ago, but such things need some kind of mending, they don't just need for time to pass. If there's even a comment, any comment, from the candidate on what caused the desysopping, or on what was said in Candidate1 2, I can't find it. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 29 August 2099 (UTC).
Reluctant oppose per Bishonen, and the difs provided. User's current contribs are good, and Orphanbot is excellent, but there are still some problems that I feel haven't been addressed. Sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:54, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose The question of whether Candidate1 will abuse the admin tools when given them was already answered in February. Additionally, the nominee didn't say anything about the desysopping in this RfA (no thoughts on the matter?). Thus, I do not have a reason to waive item (x) of my standards. -- tariqabjotu 20:04, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Essentially my point, as well, but I am not sure it points to an oppose. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:08, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
You are free to disagree, but given that the only involuntarily de-sysoped person to be re-sysoped had to be de-sysoped again, I'm not easily willing to give second chances on adminship. I believe the incident involving Candidate1 was quite major, and that the nominee's lack of comment regarding it is an issue. -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 29 August 2099 (UTC)

Oppose It's a noble task to keep Wikipedia from being sued, but Candidate1 seems to be doing it in a way that hurts Wikipedia just as much by causing ill will towards potential contributors. The ends don't justify the means. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 22:44, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Indenting comments per WP:SOCK. - Taxman ^Talk 02:43, 30 August 2099 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I thought we were done with this. I had the same problem with you people last week, and I assume this has to do with that karmafist person, who I live in the same town as. If i've broken some rule somehow, let me know, and we'll work it out else where, i'm not looking to make trouble. Until then,please desist with the defammation. I'm assuming that Coffee Shop is in the same shoes as I am, and I'd hope that the Assume Good Faith page is not meaningless, so i'll help him even if nobody else does. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 21:49, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
As a bureaucrat it is my job to determine consensus in RfAs. Do not undo my indenting of a comment, and certainly not for one that supposedly isn't you. Your comment is still here so if anyone wants to take it into account they can. I'm not currently going to bother purusing blocking you from editing, but as you are in obvious violation of WP:SOCK I am going to make sure that is noted so this consensus gathering exercise is not disrupted. - Taxman ^Talk 22:17, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Ok, 1. You're the one disrupting this "consensus gathering exercise" by accusing me of things just for me sharing my opinion. 2. Bureaucrat or not, you've also voted in this "consensus gathering exercise". You're a biased party and cannot ethically assess a fellow voters opinion while having your own vote stand. 3. I will not yield to intimidation or bullying(regarding your comment to blocking me), regardless of whoever you think you are. This just makes me think even more that the consternation that must revolve around Candidate1 makes him not worthy of this position. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 22:35, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose at least until Candidate1 answers question #4. What could have possessed him to block 3 established users indefinitely? --Fang Aili ^talk 22:58, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Per several of the above, not sure which one is more appropriate to what I think, I concur with most of the above statements. The Coffee Shop That Smiles Upon The River 01:05, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Indenting per WP:SOCK. - Taxman ^Talk 02:43, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
strong oppose Last time i said that those stupid enough to engage in this wheel war didnt deserve the trust ever again, whilst i still stand by that the fact that he hasn't shown any remorse make me want to strongly oppose Benon 02:52, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose - not because of the blocks, but because they were given no experation --T-rex 03:20, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Second chances are for those who understand that they screwed up in the first place. I am not saying Candidate1 should publically apologize for something he doesn't believe was wrong—on the contrary, I admire him for sticking to his guns, and for continuing to contribute to Wikipedia despite the consequences of doing so—but the error was egregious in my view, and if he does not indicate he understands this then there's every reason to believe there might be other errors. -- SCZenz 03:55, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose This really doesn't sound like a good idea. --Wetman 09:18, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I'm going to agree with the comments of Agent 86, despite being inclined to give second chances (Hence the weak opposition). — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:04, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Running OrphanBot is excellent work and is of huge benefit to the encyclopedia, and can still be done as an non-admin. However, the main issue is one mentioned by most of the other opposes. Even a "gross error of judgement" is forgivable, but for it to be so, there has to be confidence that the person who committed the error actually realises it was an serious error. Without that, we are simply risking the same errors happening again. Unfortunately, I do not have that confidence, the lack of response noted by others, and the unreplied question by Mike Christie in this rfa, all worry me. In short, excellent contributer, with very useful work with the bot, but not suitable for the sysop bit at this time. Regards, MartinRe 13:15, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Per the above. He seems to abrasive for this position. Just H 13:21, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Its an unhappy oppose for a Wikipedian who is many times more experienced than me and many others; per above all. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:40, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Agent 86 and Bishonen. I think his work on images is admirable, but largely can be done as a non-admin. A response to #4 above, or a pledge to only work on image-related matters, might allow me to change my mind, but for now I am firm. -- nae'blis 15:40, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. I've been holding back from this one until now to see if Q4 would get a response, or to see if anyone else has provided any evidence at all of a recognition from Candidate1 that he did something wrong. Had there been a recognition of mistakes made, then I'd be quite happy to consider supporting this RFA, I certainly believe in second chances. However, I see nothing from the candidate (only the opinions of others) that suggests a similar incident won't happen again. I certainly am not opposing because of the image work as some others are. Petros471 17:25, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Changed to weak oppose, in light of a reply to Q4. Still oppose because reply should have come much sooner, and not fully satisfied with it. Petros471 17:04, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Grue 17:47, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Whatever the rights and wrongs are, I suggest you give it at least another year, Candidate1. best wishes Bob BScar23625 18:31, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. It is true that one infraction can be forgiven. But it can't be forgiven if the infractor doesn't get that it was an infraction. With no apparent rememdy to the disconnect in understanding that gave rise to the whole thing, I can't support re-adminning the candidate. This does not disrespect his editorial work, but I am not lent the confidence I need to have a hand in dispensing a sysop bit here. We've had our finger toasted before by re-sysopping the de-sysopped, and it's a mistake we should avoid making again. -Splash - tk 20:08, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Per above, no confidence at present. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose We have enough controversial admins as it is. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Civilty issues, among other things. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 22:25, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose This is a tough choice for me, but because Candidate1's reluctance to apologize or answer Question 4 make me feel that he has not fully recovered from the late unpleasantness.-- danntm ^T _C 00:17, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Candidate1 has contributed commendably to the Project as a non-admin, and I sincerely hope he continues to do so, but given the high-handedness with which he has wielded administrative powers in the past I am extremely disinclined to return them to him. --keepsleeping slack off! 03:37, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose His work with images is commendable, however adminship is not a reward for a job well done. I am unwilling to trust this user with the ability to block other users. Mexcellent 06:45, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose - I feel bad about opposing, but there is no evidence of contrition for past behaviour. I wish there had been something, but there isn't. Absent that, I can't give this person my trust. Metamagician3000 07:37, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. His actions back then were the worst use of admin powers I have ever seen on Wikipedia and terribly destructive. That's not the reason I'm opposing though, it's the fact that he has not apologised or expressed any remorse - quite the opposite in fact (see Bishonen's comment). the wub "?!" 09:58, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. With regret. Per refusal to cummunicate on this RfA. I don't have high requirements for admins. But an admin should be able to address concerns brought up. --Ligulem 11:35, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
I appreciate the recent post of Candidate1 here. But the wording he used is not really convincing, sorry. I keep with my oppose. --Ligulem 08:27, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, per irksome apologists. Lapinmies 12:13, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Comment Having been irked by apologists myself, I know what you mean. Good debate, though. I managed to be unaware of the Userbox War till it was all over. I feel bad for the people who got hurt over this, and understand their need to oppose. My viewpoint and that of other supporters probably will not carry enough weight for this RfA to succeed. It may never be that enough time passes for this to be left in the past. It's just a pity that so much harm came out of such an issue as useboxes. They were part of the landscape when I joined Wikipedia, and I took them for granted. I just can't see wheelwarring over them. Sure, in the long run, denying Candidate1's RfA won't make that much of an impact on the image mess, but I feel the good he could do might make up for some of the harm he caused.. :) Dlohcierekim 13:59, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
It's not userboxes anymore, it's more of a question of trust (or the lack thereof). - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose: Still no regret over his comments and actions. That they were reversed/ignored is a testimony to the good character of the rest of Wikipedia, but, despite the massive amount of very valuable work he has done and does, I don't want to see another crisis. Geogre 13:10, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Bishonen and Geogre. If he admitted some sort of fault or offered some sort of apology, and noted that he learned something from his actions, that would change my opinion. The pedophilia userbox war was very damaging, though, and I'm not convinced that everyone learned their lesson and promised not to repeat the behavior in the future. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:02, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Tagging images and discussing copyright and licensing issues does not require administrative facilities. His poorly-considered blocks actions have incurred a human cost, as can be seen at WP:AN/I, and I yet have to see any acknowledgment of that. Dr Zak 17:18, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose, this user has a terrible history. Everyking 22:02, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Candidate has failed to even apologise for the conduct that led to desysopping, therefore the objection based on that conduct still stands. Also, from a pratical point of view, giving Candidate1 sysop powers would mean that images targeted by OrphanBot would be deleted without another user checking to ensure that OrphanBot was correct. (yes, I realise that OrphanBot does not itself delete images, but I would prefer the 'oversight' to be done by a user without connection with the bot). I am also very concerned about the way that some of his supporters have been treating Giano. Cynical 06:47, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Regretfully still oppose. Candidate's work with image copyrights and Orphanbot are laudable. ~~but, if he can do these without the admin buttons, why take the risk of his abusing the admin buttons if he doesn't need them? Adminship is not a reward.~~ Based on candidate's expanded answer to Q#1, I now believe that having the admin buttons would further his work with images and I would like to be able to vote in favor of giving them to him. Nonetheless, candidate still needs to address the issue of the original "pediophile userbox" incident and the fact that many Wikipedians still think this was a big issue whereas he does not seem to think it was that big a deal. It is not sufficient to say "it was a mistake". Candidate has made comments arguing that it wasn't that big a mistake. Personally, I don't think it was as huge a mistake as some make it out to be (i.e. I don't think Wikipedia was at risk of coming apart at the seams). However, it was certainly a bigger mistake than the candidate seems to think it was. We need to understand WHY the candidate says it was a mistake, what sort of a mistake he thinks it was and to be convinced that it won't happen again. Candidate seems to think that an assurance of not abusing the admin buttons is sufficient. Wikipedians voting against this RFA seem to want more than a promise. They are looking for a change of heart which, unfortunately, does not seem to be forthcoming. I also agree with those who have said that part of the opposition to this RFA is about sending a message that those who abuse admin powers will not easily get them again. --Richard 09:19, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose ~~Doesn't need admin tools to run OrphanBot, and I see scant evidence that he can be trusted to wisely wield the mop. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 10:37, 1 December 2099 (UTC)~~ I was asked to reconsider, and I have. I reread the ArbCom case and I read his answers to the questions. Unfortunately, I cannot change my position. I understand that there are images uploaded that should not be here, and I understand that it's a problem, but I do not see enough evidence that he will wisely wield the scissors. It's not enough to say, "Get over it because I have." Once bitten, twice shy. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:27, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose as he's already demonstrated a tendency to abuse the tools. No reason to believe his approach has changed since that time. We need fewer hotheaded, drama-escalating admins, not more. Friday (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, after the answer to Q4. Every piece of kudos and praise that can be heaped upon Candidate1 for his work with OrphanBot is highly deserved - magnificent work. His answer to Q1 indicates that his sysop activities would be restricted to dealing with image issues flagged up by OrphanBot. Normally that would not be a problem for me - a single focus admin (dealing mainly with one particular realm) is possibly even a good thing. For me, the problem is that admins inevitably get drawn into many other areas on WP. Candidate1's answer to Q4 troubles me greatly. It cedes no recognition to the gravity with which his previous "transgression" was viewed by the community. My summation of this answer, from the language used, is along the lines of ... "I made a mistake, I e-mailed some friends to say so, it's no big deal - get on with it, I've been busy." Please correct me if I'm wrong with this summation Candidate1, and expand as need be, This answer suggests to me a disregard for community opinion, that important lessons have not been learned, and future problems will probably ensue as you get drawn, inevtably, into WP areas outside OrphanBot's remit. Sorry, but not for me this time. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:09, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose This candidate has already had the opportunity to be an admin and abused that power. And Cactus.man sums up my thoughts on the candidate's answer to question #4 perfectly. DrunkenSmurf 00:39, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. In all the circumstances, "was a mistake" just doesn't cut it. Palmiro | Talk 00:41, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose OrphanBot is doing some great work, but there are such significant civility issues here that I'd be pretty uncomfortable coming to him if I had a problem. An administrator should be transparent, willing to be held accountable for his actions, and have much more respect for community opinion. — riana_dzast a _{wreak havoc|damage report} 02:14, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per above. – Elisson • Talk 02:37, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose as I feel that Candidate1 takes blocking rather lightly, saying that the indefinite block was "just a few minutes of not editing," when delibrations over even short blocks are vetted on ANI, with a warning far more typical than a strong indefinite block. Hbdragon88 07:35, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Cactus.man. Candidate1 did nothing in his Q4 answer to demonstrate that he considers his "mistake" to be as serious as the opposing editors here do. Vadder 12:54, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. My experience of dealing with Candidate1 is strictly unpleasant. He seems to be as "unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, etc" as ever. His bot, in its current form, is a disgrace of this project. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:35, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, per previous activity, along with creating a destructive bot. Admins can take care of any image issues, and OrphanBot disrupts Wikipedia and hurts the overall quality of the encyclopedia. --CFIF ☎ 21:21, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
deleting 100s of images is hard work. haveing to go through and remove them from articles as well (along with haveing to warn people) is beyond the admin numbers we currently have.Geni 17:25, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Bishonen. up+l+and 08:05, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine). Jorcoga 09:00, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate seems to be lacking in the positive communication skills necessary to be a good admin. Singopo 00:56, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per all above. No admission that he did anything wrong. -Royalguard11^Talk^Desk 04:06, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
He admited it was a mistake and have said he will discuss all blocks before making them in the future, what more do you want? Groveling? --Sherool (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
In a word, yes. He needs to do the sawdust and hairshirt thing. If he did, I think a number of Oppose votes might shift. It's the same problem as came up during unsuccessful RFA #2. --Richard 09:19, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
He said it was a mistake, but he didn't say it was wrong- kind of the same way leaving $100 of your own money on a bench in a mall unguarded is a mistake, but not morally wrong. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:20, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Adminship isn't a reward, it's a responsibility. Danielross40 06:26, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't normally vote in or follow RfAs, but after I stumbled upon this one while looking for some other information, and subsequently reading the ArbCom ruling and evidence (as well as the various reasons support and oppose here), I'm worried that this user's actions may well repeat in a heated situation again. I think his work with OrphanBot is great, especially given my occassional past efforts at tagging unsourced and unlicensed images manually (not fun), but adminship shouldn't be a reward, IMO. Also, as others have expressed as well, I really don't have great confidence in his ability to not repeat the errors of his past. I hate to assume such things, but if a person reacts in that fashion to one hot-button issue... --FreelanceWizard 20:38, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Oppose as I stated in his previous Rfa: Simply put, Candidate1 is a bully. No bully should ever be allowed near Wikipedia, let alone admin tools. I also stated how everyone should be given the chance to redeem themselves if they want it. In the previous months, I've seen no sign Candidate1 wants it, nor that he has significantly changed his ways. Once a bully, always a bully. This is a proxy vote cast on behalf of User:Karmafist by User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Neutral: Weak Neutral, leaning towards Support. I can't believe people complain about OrphanBot. As for his past problems, he has already tried adminship before, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate1 2, after being desysop'ed. I would like to see diffs between his second and this request to probe that he is likely to abuse the tools. -- ReyBrujo 03:50, 29 August 2099 (UTC) Changed to Support. -- ReyBrujo 13:05, 4 December 2099 (UTC)

Neutral OK, this is a highly-divisive issue and I would lean towards support for a good contributor but for one thing; I cannot see any expression of remorse for the actions that you performed in order to have the admin status stripped from you in the first place. Such an expression doesn't appear here or in your previous attempt to pass the RfA. Is it possible to receive assurances from you that a repeat of this wheel-war event won't happen? (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
Neutral. I would really like to support, but the candidate hasn't even mentioned what is obviously the central issue here. Shell ^babelfish 13:59, 29 August 2099 (UTC) changed to support

Neutral per CrazyRussian. While everyone deserves a chance to redeem himself, admins must be held to very high standards of civility and never use their sysop powers as part of a dispute. Eluchil404 17:49, 29 August 2099 (UTC)
switiching to support Eluchil404 17:24, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral. I would support Candidate1 if he would simply and plainly admit he made a mistake, and state he won't use his renewed administrative powers to wheel war again. If Candidate1 makes a public apology, and I forget to change this to support, the closing 'crat can count this as one. On another topic, I'm shocked to see so many opposes merely because some users (apparently) don't understand image policy. Picaroon9288|ta co 00:29, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Neutral per Eluchil404 --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 August 2099 (UTC)
Neutral pending some statement from Candidate1 on civility and wheel war issues.
Changing to Support above. Dlyons493 Talk 13:46, 30 August 2099 (UTC)

~~Neutral~~. I place a high value on civil behaviour. I don't want to see an insincere apology from Candidate1, and the question I posted (Q4) really is optional. However, I don't have a real basis to vote support, because I can't see a strong reason to assume admin powers would not be misused in future. I've voted support in cases where civility was in question, because I believed the candidate when he stated he'd not make the same mistake again; I don't have that confidence here. I also value usefulness to the community, and it seems clear Candidate1 would make very good use of admin powers in his work with images. I would like to support on those grounds but don't have the confidence in his behaviour to do so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2099 (UTC)

Neutral pending an answer to Mike Christie's Question #4 above, or some statement from Candidate1 on the issues surrounding the whole block / wheelwar / desysop affair. I believe that people should have a second chance, provided that second chance is deserved. In the absence of comment from Candidate1 I have no basis upon which to judge whether it's deserved or not in this case. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:14, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Neutral pending satisfactory answer to Q4. ++Lar: t/c 11:21, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Neutral per Lar and Aeropagiotica, among others. Hopefully the closing 'crat will have the sense to disregard whines about OrphanBot, since those who do the whining generally show no willingness to pay for our legal bills if the IP lawyers descend. Just zis Guy you know? 11:59, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Neutral, for the time being, per Cactus.man. Alai 18:27, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
Neutral per Lar and Aero, agree with Guy's comments about Orphanbot. It would be helpful if Candidate1 had shown some measure of remorse about the past incidents. JoshuaZ 21:51, 31 August 2099 (UTC)

To be clear an apology at this point would be not helpful. JoshuaZ 02:44, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral - But if he cracks into peer pressure and launches a "public apology", I'm switching to oppose. It's not like it'd make any difference, and I'm sick of Wikipedia's panderings to public showings of remorse and The Prisoner style public confessions. What happened, happened. - Hahnch e n 02:08, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
An HONEST apology would be completely different. But I don't believe Candidate1 is capable of it. Anyway, be fair to him. If we did get an honest apology things would change. But I doubt we will, because he is not sorry. Juppiter 05:25, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
I have no idea why so many oppose voters are obsessing over the lack of an apology. Get over it, move on, it's is incredibly petty to ask for an apology. I don't understand this constant pandering over public apologies on Wikipedia. For example, in this RFA, the incident which lead to the original desysopping happening just days before. Yet people were still supporting due to a "heartfelt apology", whilst ignoring that the incident had only just happened. - Hahnch e n 18:10, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral Switching to neutral. While an apology would have been better to help smooth out the hurt feelings caused by the issue, so much good work can outweigh even an egregious mistake. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. Sorry to those still angry over the issue though. - Taxman ^Talk 02:42, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
NeutralSecond chances are admirable, but it appears that he is too volatile at the current time, so i'm torn between both sides. Georgian Jungle 13:09, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral— Einstein’s quote, “It gives me great pleasure indeed to see the stubbornness of an incorrigible nonconformist warmly acclaimed,” came to mind as I read this. It is true that nonconformity often comes with great creativity; I applaud the independent spirit that does not "knuckle under" to publicly apologize. Never-the-less, "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested to build a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." The powers of the Wikipedia Administrator to delete, resurrect, ban, reauthorize and make things invisible to the average user requires as a minimum standard, mutual respect. I can understand a number of Wikipedian’s feel that contrition for actions outside of the community norm is the relatively small price required to restore this mutual respect. This discussion documents that we haven’t reached that minimum standard. It saddens me to see such a longstanding and solid contributor unapproved; but the best indicator of future performance is still past performance—and although I will not oppose, I also can not support. Williamborg (Bill) 21:47, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral leaning towards oppose, per the above. He seems hostile with the bot. Mutebutton 00:58, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral answer to Q4 is just enough for me... even if a bit late. --W.marsh 14:43, 3 December 2099 (UTC)