Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bettia 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Bettia

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

Final: (83/0/2); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 13:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bettia (talk · contribs) – Bettia first came to my attention at his first RfA (link below, of course) back in September 2008. I supported early and took a real interest in the candidacy because I felt that too much attention was paid to edit count, and not enough attention was paid to quality of edits. I'm not trigger-happy to grant the bit, but I do feel that sometimes we overlook fine candidates just because we haven't seen them around "enough".

Well, that shouldn't be a problem this time around. Bettia did just what I expected; he went off and kept doing what he'd been doing, only more of it.

It's time to cast a good look over this fine, well-rounded editor and grant the bit. I'm not going to cheat and provide the same diffs I provided in support of that RfA; you're all capable of finding them yourselves. I will, however, provide several examples of more recent activity:

I think the point is clear; I'm not going to claim I looked through literally hundreds of edits at AfD, but what I have looked over seems to be spot-on. As before, he knows how to properly evaluate whether articles should be kept or not.

OK, so what else? Bettia has put in some work at third opinion, a useful corner of the project where folks who are consensus-minded but nevertheless haven't found a way to reach consensus go to ask for a neutral evaluation. He has kept a short log of 3O contributions, and they look great to me (even if there is sometimes a tendency on the part of others to continue discussions long beyond necessary). Again, you can click the links yourselves; if you want to see a particular dedication to achieving consensus in the face of adversity, check out the one at Power Rangers. (This is also not one of Bettia's normal editing areas; how's that for well-rounded?)

"What about content", you ask? Again, look to Bettia's user page for lists which I won't bore you by repeating. I will point out just a sampling of high-quality content (again, you can look for yourselves, and I want to leave him room to pick out his own best contributions): Peterborough Saxons, Economy and industry of Cardiff, and templates British American Football and American football club. While I admit I'm lukewarm about lists in general, List of people from Cardiff is the epitome of what a good list should be. (And who can resist a list that includes Dame Shirley Bassey?)

Finally, please take notice that Bettia has been contributing to the project - including the Wikipedia space and template content - for a considerable period, not just the few months prior to this RfA, and not even just since his first RfA. We have here a candidate with varied and long experience, who will be an asset as an administrator.

Thanks for your consideration.  Frank  |  talk  02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I happily and humbly accept, and give a gurt big diolch am fawr (thank you very much) to Frank for his glowing recommendation.

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As stated in my first RfA, I would initially be working on the anti-vandalism side of things, checking in on WP:AIV and blocking any persistant vandals that I come across during the course of my own patrolling. I'd also be working on speedy deletions and proposed deletions (two areas which I've improved upon since last time around), as well as deleting pages where a clear consensus has been reached. As time goes on, I'd expect to get to grips with other, perhaps more contentious areas such as addressing unclear AfDs and DRVs.
As a vaguely relevant analogy, I've recently started officating American football where my favoured position is umpire, a position which requires me to be in the thick of things, sorting out any nastiness on the field before it starts, and generally keeping the tempo of the game going at a nice steady pace. That's more or less what I want to bring to Wikipedia - keeping things flowing by clearing backlogs in places such as WP:AIV and WP:CSD, and giving persistent troublemakers a thumb over the shoulder.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Since my first RfA, I've managed to get Andover F.C. up to GA-standard, which I'm very pleased about - I may even try to get this up to FA (or at least A class) if at all possible. I've also been working on BAFL team articles, some of which I've been able to improve substantially. One example of this is Colchester Gladiators which, before I got involved, was an out-of-date one paragraph stub [1]. So far I've got two of these teams onto the main page as DYKs. As Frank has pointed out above, I've also been active on the AfD side of things. This has helped me to get a real handle on notability guidelines, and in particular deciding whether published sources on a subject are enough to establish notability or not.
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: Pardon my laziness but I'll have to paste what I wrote for my first RfA because my situation is still more or less the same. The nearest I've come to an edit war was very early on in my time here on Wikipedia. This was a disagreement regarding a single statistic used in the lead for Cardiff. At first, this consisted of simple reverting and counter-reverting (thankfully not regular enough to threaten the 3RR), but we moved it quickly to the talk page where we were able to discuss it properly and come to a decent solution. Since then, I've been involved in very few disagreements, and any that have come my way have been minor, short-lived, and kept as much as possible on talk (or AfD) pages. It's just a matter of learning when to detach yourself from a subject, and of course frequent reading of WP:LAME keeps me from getting involved in anything petty!
Optional questions from Shapiros10
4. What is your view on article writing experience in administrator candidates? Do you feel featured content and whatnot is required?
A: Having some article-building experience shows an understanding of what mainspace editing and the Wiki guidelines that go with it (for example, the importance of providing references) as well as giving some insight into a particular person's philosophy, character and their dedication to Wikipedia - it certainly tells you a lot more than how often they click a Twinkle link. However, I wouldn't say having featured/GA/DYK content is essential when it comes to dishing out the mop and bucket. Different 'pedians have different strengths, and writing a featured article only demonstrates a person's knowledge on a particular subject and how well they can put it into written words - it doesn't really show their suitability as an admin. After all, the most prolific writer could very well abuse his/her priviliges without a second thought and it's only by taking ALL of their work into account that their suitability can be gauged.
5. What is your view on underage editors editing Wikipedia in general? Not as admin hopefuls, just editors.
A: There's certainly nothing wrong with kids editing Wikipedia - I believe anyone with computer access and a bit of knowledge can bring something to this table. My only reservation is that underage editors can have a very hard time understanding Wiki guidelines. Indeed, this is something I've seen in the past - a while ago, a well-meaning editor caused a fair bit of disruption on Cardiff by adding numerous unsourced (and often wildly incorrect) claims and uploading copyrighted material, although he did make some constructive edits which could expanded upon.[2] Unfortunately, the repeated addition of the incorrect claims led to a number of blocks, and he was eventually indef-blocked for sockpuppetry after creating a new account to get around the block, probably out of ignorance of the rules rather than a deliberate block-evasion.
I guess in this situation, dealing with such a user calls for a lot of patience, civility and careful explanation of the rules, and hopefully they'll cotton on and become long-standing members of this project.


Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

6a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: Firstly, the mere presence of an underconstruction tag would have no bearing on the deletion process - after all, the template text itself states "Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page has not been edited in several days or the page has no content at all".
Before deleting though, I'd make two quick checks; first, a search for any indication of notability - if none can be found, it's a valid candidate for speedy deletion and I would do so if no hangon tag was placed on the page. The onus on any article creator is to establish the subject's notability. On this occasion, it may be worth dropping the user a note suggesting that if they wish to build a proper article, it would be a good idea to use a sandbox. I would also take a look at the article creator's contribution history - if this page was their first edit, that would ring a few alarm bells of the COI variety. The username could be a major clue here as well - for example, a page called "Webdesignsolutions" created by 'User:webdesignsolutions2009' would be a dead giveaway. If that was the case, I would suspect the user was trying to game the system by using the tag to keep a spamlink on the system (completely futile - as we all know, Wikipedia uses 'nofollow' tags and would therefore has no effect on search engine rankings). It might be worth watching the user for a while to check that they make no attempt to recreate the same page.
However, if I thought there was any chance that this article could be saved, I'd decline the speedy request, mark it as a stub and perhaps try to wikify it a bit just to give it a start (and perhaps spur our friend into more constructive action). An example of this is Paul G. Boyle - this was marked for deletion back in November, but I was able to stay the hand of execution, tidyed it up and added a couple of references. Unfortunately the article's creator hasn't done much on it since then, but the intention was there!
6b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?
A: In this case, I would speedy it immediately as CSD:A3 (no content).


Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim
7. Why is enforcement of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:VER not exempted from the 3 revert rule? Should it be?
A. It shouldn't be exempt from the 3RR because, unlike bad ol' fashioned vandalism, those guidelines are rarely black and white and often require some degree of discussion. For example - Is that statement neutral or not? Can it be verified or not? Is that cited source reliable or not? Simply reverting someone's edits citing those reasons will more often than not escalate into an edit war and would quickly promote bad feelings between users.
8. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP.
A. If that kind of statement were to appear on an article (rather than a Talk page as this example does), it would definitely violate BLP simply because the source cited falls under those listed as unreliable ("Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material..."). Such a claim would need to be worded much more neutrally and backed up with a more reliable source, perhaps even from the subject himself.
If that comment were used on Talk:Thane Rosenbaum or the talkpage of a similar biographical subject, it might also be removed (also as recommended by WP:BLP) unless it formed a useful part of a discussion. In my opinion, the wording as it stands here seems to be implying an ad hominem argument - not really the sort of thing that would encourage constructive discussion.

Optional question from Keepscases

9. Would you delete the main page for a lump sum of one million euros?
A: Gasp! Are you seriously suggesting that I could be bribed into committing such a wanton act of vandalism for one million euros? Shame on you sonny Jim, that's a fifteen yard penalty right there! Now, if you had offered me one million pounds...
Seriously though, I certainly wouldn't do anything like that - it'd be a major betrayal of trust if nothing else.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]
Ahhh, so you had a cunning plan! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer question 9 with: Of course. Then I'd donate it to the WMF. Synergy 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE Q9: I'm pretty sure you and every other admin on this project would delete the main page if offered a million euros. If adminship means that much to you, you could just create a sock and start again :P--Pattont/c 19:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support
[edit]
  1. Beat-the-nom Support. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support Having crossed paths with Bettia on several occasions, I believe he would be a great asset as an admin. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weakly Supported last time but I see no reason not to support strongly this time. Excellent nomination statement, nothing further to add. A good all-rounder who will use the tools actively and wisely. Pedro :  Chat  12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I supported last time and I see no reason not to do the same now, just more so. His speedy work is impressive (the last decline is from December[3]) and he seems competent and helpful. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, Bettia's contributions seen at the last RfA were very good, with the primary objection from many people being that there weren't enough of them. They're still very good, and I am happy to support - I really can't see any reason at all not to. Best of luck! ~ mazca t|c 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, yeah, he was perfect last time too Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, excellent candidate. Ironholds (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I spent about 15 minutes looking over Bettia's speedy deletion history. It looks like he's getting at least 98% of his nominations deleted which is a very good track record. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Looks fine to me. LittleMountain5 review! 15:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Impressive NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Awesome work. Ceranthor 17:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Loved the userbox in the candidate's profile (you can guess which one). Also enjoyed getting a chuckle out of the bizarre vandalism examples (I don't think it encourages vandalism to have a laugh about it now and then). Keepscases (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Great work in a variety of areas. -download | sign! 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support The answers to all of the questions indicate a very high level of clue. This is what we need. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Like the AfD work, like the CSD work, like the anti-vand work... really, nothing I didn't like. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has no blocks and no memorable negative interactions with me; rather, the candidate does have some barnstars and did you know credits on userpage. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Great attitude, dedicated, good work in admin areas. What do you call a suitable admin candidate from Cardiff? Leisure centre Bettia. — neuro(talk) 20:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - I like everything I see here - particularly seemingly level-headed maturity, both in answers and in edits. FlyingToaster 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Trust? Yes, Problems?, no, Will he delete the main page?, probably not, support.--Giants27 T/C 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I have seen him around, a trustworthy editor with a good knowledge of policy. King of the North East 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I know it may seem a bit cliche, but I kind of thought Bettia already had the bit. Excellent candidate and excellent nomination, I sincerely doubt he will abuse the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Looks good to me! I don't think he'll abuse the admin tools. Best, Versus22 talk 00:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Very good editor, has large amounts of clue, won't misuse the tools. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support -- Fastily (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. An excellent candidate, knowledgeable and clueful. You do have a misspelled word on your userpage, though, that you might want to fix. Useight (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I definately definitely have a preferance preference for correct spelling as well! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support. Wizardman 03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support -- Great user who knows how to use the admin tools and has the attitude of an admin. Upon seeing his experience in vandal fighting and at AfD, he will benefit from these tools, as will the community.--₮RUCӨ 04:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support Per above comments. No reason to think that he would abuse the tools. Until It Sleeps 05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. As Pedro notes, answers to questions are particularly revealing. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Anybody who can merge West Country English and Welsh into an acceptance of nomination gets my vote! More seriously, excellent answers to questions, has certainly taken on board concerns from last RfA and developed as an editor; an ability to listen is a vital skill of an admin. --GedUK  08:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, I supported last time, and as far as I can see this candidate has only gotten better! Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, very helpful and constructive on Wales articles with which I've been involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, Browsing through his contributions and from his in-depth answers to the questions it is obvious, to me and all previous voters, that Bettia is a highly trustworthy candidate and will benefit wikipedia with the mop. I Grave Rob«talk» 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, will be a good admin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Seems like a nicely rounded candidate who was easy to work with during Andover F. C.'s GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Lean Support nomination was tl;dr. The individual in question seems to be okay. Ottava Rima talk 18:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support good answers to questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support of course, as nom.  Frank  |  talk  20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support What else need I say???? α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Modern renaissance man (Aka EVula the second ;-))--Pattont/c 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Has been around since Nov 2007 and concerns raised in previous RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Last time I opposed for lack of experience and activity. This time around, the candidate has shown much improvement and I can comfortably support this time around. DiverseMentality 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Seems a very good candidate, good luck. Dean B (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Answers reflect on good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 02:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, obviously. Such a dedicated Wikipedian cannot possibly be denied adminship. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. miranda 03:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Very good editor, will make a Great admin. Marek.69 talk 04:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I see nothing of concern, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support solid work! Agathoclea (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support Keep up the good work! Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support A very good editor...Good luck!  Badgernet  ₪  11:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Full Support per the above comments. Good luck!  :) –BuickCenturyDriver 12:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - meets my standards. I opposed the last time. I now support in part due to great AfD work. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support as if there could be any doubt! (Except one. Would you trust someone to make wise decisions if they turned down a million euros offer for deleting the main page? The correct answer is, of course, "I'd delete the page, take the million euros, restore the page, and share the money with my good buddy RegentsPark!") --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Highly Strong Support Agreed with everyone else. You'd make a great sysop. Ginbot86 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per good answers. I'm also glad you're a content builder too.--Caspian blue 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support - good answers to questions and good editing. You'll do great as a sysop! Cheers, MathCool10 Sign here! 06:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support yandman 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Per good reputation. MBisanz talk 02:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support because you're lacking in the support column. Tavix (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, as you obviously need it. Good candidate all round, I think. Faultless. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Listening to My IPod (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - iMatthew // talk // 16:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: Everyone else has said it well enough. Maedin\talk 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support No issues. Looks good. hmwithτ 17:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Synergy 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support No problems here.--Res2216firestar 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support undoubtedly fr33kman -s- 03:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Singopo (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Looks good to me, passes User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria with no concerns. Good answers to many questions too I must say. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. No problems. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Even if I did find something wrong, I'd be scared of the 80 editors above me =p §hawnpoo 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Excellent nom, excellent experience, and a excellent job with Andover F.C.. Gears of War 2 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Pile-On Support Got into this one late, but I see no reason not to give this candidate the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
We can't have this section going un-edited. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the minimalist look rather suited it! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per "bring on the trumpets" in the user's sig, I hate that ad :P--Pattont/c 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. If you ever do get the opportunity to delete the mainpage for one million euros (if that were technically possible) do it without hesitation and donate all those funds to the WMF. Yes, it would spark a huge drama-fest and thousands of our visitors would be met with a blank page few minutes and our reputation might take a hit but the benefits outweigh the negatives so ridiculously there is no question. The foundation needs money and doing without our mainpage for a few minutes would be an easy way to raise it. Icewedge (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, damn my integrity! I can see where you're coming from though, it would be a nice little earner if someone had that sort of money to dish out. Unfortunately I'm just not the sort of guy to do that - we'll just have to find a more legitimate way of raising that million! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've looked through this candidate's history and to be honest I was bored. There is very little there other than vandalism reverts - I'm sure I've seen this user around but can't place him (or her) on a particular article right now. I'm not knocking the anti-vandalism stuff, it is of course valuable work, but in most cases it hardly demonstrates sounds judgement. Similarly I find the cases presented in the nomination less than compelling. There is nothing wrong with them but a simple application of policy with no real judgement required doesn't really impress me.
    There's no evidence he would do any harm but on the flip side there is little evidence of good judgement. I've no grounds to oppose him but at the same time I am not comfortable supporting him. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bettia_2&oldid=1145079440"