Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bettia

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

Bettia

Final (28/27/3); Closed as unsuccessful by WJBscribe at 10:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bettia (talk · contribs) - I feel although this user has not made thousands of mainpage edits, his work on vandalism and pages that are regularly vandalised i.e. Cardiff should be rewarded and recognised with extra responsibility (and trust). He has already received Barnstars from myself and from Flexijane. All this makes him an ideal candidate who can only become a better editor and administrator. Seth Whales (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly and gratefully accept, and say a big "diolch am fawr" to Seth for thinking of me so highly. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: Initially this would centre around dealing with vandalism, checking in on WP:AIV and blocking any persistant vandals that I come across during the course of my own patrolling. I've also contributed to a number of AfD discussions which has given me a good handle of deletion criteria, especially concerning notability. Therefore I could also be of use in addressing speedy deletions and uncontested PRODs as well as deleting pages where a clear consensus has been reached quickly. Obviously after I get to grips with the Admin tools I can look to cover other duties, such as dealing with 3RR-violations and disputes.

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

A: Apart from vandal patrolling (which has been a lot more effective since I started using Vandal Fighter), and making minor contributions to Cardiff (which have been mainly clearing up any vandalism and making the odd improvement here and there), I have expanded and created a number of sports related articles such as Andover F.C. (currently B-class, but I'm hopefully of getting this up to at least GA once I get my mitts on the required source, which happens to be a book still being written by a local journalist). I've mainly been working on articles for BAFL teams, 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 managed to get that particular page up to C-class. Many of the BAFL team articles which currently exist are pretty thin, but I'm gradually working my way through them. At present, most of the articles I have worked on are only Start-class - I'm aiming to get all the league's team pages up to scratch first before expanding them as much as possible.

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: 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 pages. I'm not so proud that I feel I have to stamp my views on everyone else here, and frequent reading of WP:LAME keeps me from getting involved in anything petty!

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: Hmmm, interesting. My initial thought was "Is it really the same person who made that constructive edit?" but that's by the by. I think that if this guy was truly serious about being a sensible editor, I would insist that he (or she) opens their own Wikipedia account purely as an act of good faith on their part. If he/she complies, I would then either suggest they voluntarily put themselves up for adoption by myself or a more experienced mentor, or at the very least watch their Contribs page for the next few days until I am satisfied about their commitment. Either way, I would leave the IP block in place. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Asenine

5. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: Funny thing is, this is vaguely similar to a situation I myself was involved in a couple of months ago. An anon user deleted a block of text without explanation regarding the origin of Cardiff's name which had stood for quite a while (although this itself was referenced), which I rollbacked and took the subject to the Talk page. We (myself, the newbie and couple of others) entered into a discussion and agreed on a solution. Bottom line is, I regard both verifiability and consensus as equally important, and one shouldn't be comprimised in favour of another. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

6. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Unfortunately I can't as I simply haven't come across any such users. Any discussions that I have been involved in have always been settled amicably (such as in Talk:Cardiff. If I was to become involved with such a user, I would try to treat them in the same way - calmly discussing any issues on a talkpage.

7. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: I'd imagine I would be more involved in the vandal-fighting side of things due to the extra powers adminship would grant, but I wouldn't envisage my work in other areas (such as AfDs and my current pet project) being affected too badly.

Optional questions from TomStar81 (Talk):

16. What is your opinion on the use of optional questions in an rfa? Are they helpful or hurtful to a potential candidate undergoing an rfa?

A: I think they're extremely helpful indeed; not only do they allow people vetting a candidate by giving them some idea about their ideas and skills outside their edit history, they also help the candidate by giving them a taste of what they can expect if their nomination is successful. Long may they continue! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

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

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

Discussion

I encourage those evaluating this candidate to examine at his adminly contributions, particularly at AfD. He knows when an article should be deleted, even this one, which was correctly recreated just 5 days ago when the player in question achieved proper notability. He also knows when to keep, including this open AfD. Possibly best of all, he also knows when to reevaluate. This is a thoughtful editor who understands policy and isn't looking to pile on in AfD discussions; his opinions are his own, they are supported by policy, they are not "per anyone" and, best of all - they look to be spot on. This is an administrator waiting for the bit. Frank | talk 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Sure, you seem level headed and a good candidate. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I'm going to toss my hat in the ring in this section I think. I suspect the low overall edit count may be a killer to this RFA, but there we go (:. There are a few things I'd have liked to see more of (in particular your reversion of vandalism to warning user ratio seems slim - but that's just my pet thing about warnings - and the lowish AIV reports associated with vandal fighting). Flip side is, I granted you rollback in February and you seem to have (on the whole) used the tool without issue. Looking at your userboxes and contributions you are a mature, good faith and conscientious editor. You're clearly here for the right reasons. I would advise caution and a slow pace with the buttons if this request passes, however I don't think you'd go wrong or make poor errors of judgement. For those reasons a qualified support. Pedro : Chat 09:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrth gwrs, as Pedro naerii 10:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pedro and a review of edits. Bettia can be trusted to tread carefully while learning the ropes in areas he hasn't yet made billions and billions of edits to. In addition, clearly understands consensus; see this example of reaching across the ~~aisle~~ pond. ;-) Frank | talk 10:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usually I like to write short essays why I choose to !vote in a certain manner, but this time Pedro put it so well, there is nothing to add. My WikiPhilosophy is after all: Skill trumps knowledge. Because with skill, you can gain yourself the knowledge you need, but just knowing policy without being able to learn does not make you a good admin. And I have every reason to believe that Bettia will learn whatever he does not know by now. So Why 11:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support- His editing history is not as extensive as one might hope for, but the issue here is familiarity with WP policies, which I believe this user has, therefore I throw my support behind him. Cheers mate! Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 11:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes, though editcount is low, I get a feeling of honesty and trustowrthiness, plus a desire to build a 'pedia, so OK (I mean really, a devious sockmaster couldn't concoct such an esoteric assortment of interests could they?? hehehe) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't have the highest amount of edits, but that doesn't bother me - otherwise, seems well qualified. how do you turn this on 13:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mostly, per Pedro and per other fine arguments presented. Dloh cierekim 15:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates absolutely nothing, and the low level of deleted contributions indicates that the user has a low level of deleted contributions. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 16:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Looks like someone who is here for all the right reasons, rather than just to run up the score (AIV Kills, and such). If you've been here for a few months actively editing, you either get it, or you don't. 10,000 edits won't make Bettia get it any more or less... they get it now. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 mainspace edits tells you exactly as much about an editor as 20,000 do. It's not like there's some magical edit threshhold where you determine a good user from a bad user. If a low edit count is the only thing ringing against him, then count me in as a Support. --Smashville^BONK! 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a constructive, reasonable and consensus-seeking editor.Pondle (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, I would like to see a bit more activity and experience, but I also see no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Support Had good interactions with AfDs and prods with Bettia. He knows his stuff. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Pedro, and a good answer to Q4. –xeno (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, moved from neutral. Keeper ǀ 76 17:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think that if you read over WP:ARL, you'll do fine. Malinaccier (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should punish some one because they don't "have enough experience". This user looks like a sane person, so I will support them. Tex (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per questions, especially Q3. I agree with Tex, except that I don't think anyone's intent is punitive. Rather, I think folks are trying to help improve the project by encouraging potential admins to get involved in the maintenance activities that keep the project running smoothly. My problem with the lack-of-experience opposes is that they just don't seem necessary. If people want to become admins, then of course they want to gain experience in admin-related areas. I think that lack-of-experience opposes encourage people to gain this experience for extrinsic reasons (e.g., to increase the odds of becoming an admin in a subsequent RfA), whereas the initial, if limited, experience may be infused with more intrinsic satisfaction from contributing to the project. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support partly per Frank and Keeper, and to be more specific from what I've seen Bettia shows good judgement. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I actually do think there is something to be said for lots of mainspace and projectspace edits when evaluating an admin. Can't draw a line in the sand because that "threshold" is different for each person. Sometimes you can edit hundreds of pages and never come across an editing dispute or a POV problem. Sometimes you can spend a long time at AfD and not really get a feel for how people contribute and what sort of articles come down the pike. but usually edits in those areas correspond pretty well with understanding. But having said that, it isn't a dealbreaker. This candidate seems like s/he has a good head on their shoulders. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Good judgement, great contributions. Exactly the sort of person who could use the mop. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Switched from opposition as the candidate has now allayed my concerns. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some of the editors responses to people on here show they are very level headed. -Djsasso (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The testmaster is proud of the good edit fixing done by this user. That is some good vandalism fixing. Clearly a great candidate! Testmasterflex (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ugen64 (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge and low level of deleted contributions (16 total) indicates a likely lack of experience with deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lack of experience in areas the candidate wishes to work. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 11:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Given the generally low experience, there isn't enough moppish work for me to support. You look like a good editor, and I'm pretty sure I'd have supported if you had a couple of more months in your pocket. — Coren ^(talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, contributions show a lack of experience in areas the candidate wishes to work in, particularly speedy deletions. With 16 deleted contributions he's either very inexperienced or very bad at tagging, neither of which are good qualities for an administrator. Ironho lds 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the candidate's enthusiasm is commendable, the acute lack of experience is too obvious to overlook. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soon. Good editor, but really doesn't have range or volume of contributions to demonstrate solid knowledge of policies. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Definitely on the right track, great editor, enthusiastic, wants to help, but still somewhat inexperienced in the areas in which he wants to work. I think if he works a bit more in the Wikipedia namespace, I will be supporting next time around. Useight (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No intention to pile on here - Bettia deserves credit for his fine editing work but this is a premature nom. Needs substantially longer, wider and regular experience in the admin range. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of activity in areas that this editor wishes to edit in. Per Wisdom technically. America69 (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough work yet on the backend. Try again around the end of the year after ramping that up. rootology (C)(T) 20:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Pretty much per Stifle, but you need to expand on your work in the mainspace and namespace. —Sunday ^Scribe 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All of the candidate's 1700 contribs are mainspace, low edit count for a vandal fighter especially, only 119 Wikipedia-space contribs, no activity in desired areas. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I feel Bettia doesn't have enough experience and has a low amount of activity, with only 39 edits last month. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I could support an editor with only 1000 mainspace edits. I could support an editor with only 100 WP space edits. But only 91 talk edits? Have a look. And a large percentage of these are Wikiproject-related. This user has posted exactly one comment to an article talk page since mid-July. To me, communication is one of the most important skills an admin can have. Not using talk pages is a big red flag. Oren0 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You said that you want to work on AIV, but can't support due to the lack of experience only having 8 reports. macy 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Candidate does not meet my standards at this time. --Winger84 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good quality mainspace contributions. However Bettia should be more active in discussions with others (e.g. Talk pages, XFD). I am sure that he will be ready in a few months. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — This user's lack of experience makes it difficult for me to judge how they would use the tools. Low edit count doesn't help, either. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Plutonium27. --Kaaveh (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Complete lack of experience in many areas where administrative action is needed (e.g. AIV). seicer | talk | contribs 13:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I am going to oppose for several reasons. Firstly, your user page makes me somewhat wary of you - some of your userboxes just do not make me confident in you, and many seem to suggest either that you do not take this project very seriously. More important, though, is the fact that you have been warned previously about incorrectly using Rollback, which seems to suggest that you are not ready to use the additional tools that would become available to you upon attaining administrative status. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, when do we start assuming good faith? You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I'm not confident of switching the direction of this RfA, so this comment is really by way of discussion - which is what an RfA is supposed to be anyway. In that vein, can you be specific about which userboxes make you "wary"? Are editors not allowed to have a bit of entertainment while hanging out around here? I think if it's not fun for people, they will burn out much more quickly. I see a balanced user who is contributing and has a neat user space with nothing offensive. Regarding rollback..I see exactly one warning and it was issued more than six months ago - and that was just 13 days after rollback was granted. I would add that the editor who granted rollback is a well-regarded admin around here who supported this RfA early. Frank | talk 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose making editing Wikipedia fun is a good thing, but aren't user pages supposed to inform others about the user and possibly contain useful links for the user themselves? Granted, Bettia's userpage does include this but some of the userboxes could arguably go against WP:UP#NOT and WP:NOTBLOG and some just clutter the userpage up and make it harder for me to understand what this user is about (e.g. being able to speak Dolphin). This may not be grounds in itself to warrant opposition, but the user's political userboxes - the one about wanting George W. Bush to be impeached in particular - might offend or alienate some, which I do not think is a positive thing. Regarding Rollback, perhaps my criticism is too harsh, but then your saying that the administrator who granted Rollback supports Bettia is not as strong a piece of evidence that Bettia should become an administrator as would be the support of the person who had issued the warning. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the link, but Jimbo has already made comments on this, and they have always been in relation to Esperanza. He has supported stuff like this in the past, and I am not one to disagree with him. Besides, I hold the same opinion. In the sarcastic words of Closedmouth on my last.fm shoutbox, "wikipedia is very serious business there are no jokes allowed" Asenine 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did feel the userpage critism was a little harsh, I have taken your comments on board by deleting the more trivial and contentious ones and reorganising the remaining boxes. As for the Rollback issue, that was a genuine mistake on my part which, as has already been pointed out, was made early on. I have used rollback plenty of times since then with no trouble at all.Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, as you have allayed my concerns, I will switch my position to supporting you. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The candidate's experience is questionable. Asenine 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great job in combating vadalism, ok, but not enough experience in other areas. Would like to see more interaction with users in improvng articles. Sry, but not yet. Gray62 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wisdom89.--Koji Dude ^(C) 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not quite enough edits for my criteria.--Theoneintraining (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose - fails to meet my standards at this time. Bettia has done great work at WP:AfD, and has made no big mistakes yet, but clearly is lacking in overall experience. Come back in two months' time, and more edits. I'll be sure to support at that time. Best of luck! Bearian (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunately, not enough experience. Fighting vandals is only one small part of an overall administrator position. Unlike internet fora, admins do far more in Wikipedia than simply preventing troll behavior. More main space edits, more administrator-like functions, some back end work, and we'll see what can happen. As for now, don't see it just yet. bigjake (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and regretful oppose ... just not enough experience. Return to RfA in a few months :-) « Diligent Terrier [talk] 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Argh... I'm so tempted to support, but I'm going to have to open the !voting with neutrality. I really feel aggrieved about this, seeing as you're a great contributor, but while you say you're interested in helping out at WP:AIV, your vandal fighting history is relatively short and you've only ever made 8 reports to AIV. You show a good knowledge and understanding of the deletion process, especially AFD, but I'm just not sure that your knowledge of other admin-related policy areas are comprehensive enough – this RFPP request posted at WP:AN/I, for example. Your article contributions are an area which you should rightfully be proud of, but I'm just unsure enough to be on the fence. I'll keep monitoring the RfA and will change that vote if my deductive reasoning is proved to be pants, as it inevitably is at this time in the morning. Pob lwc! haz (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind comments. To answer the first of your two valid points, the reason I've only made a small number of AIV reports is because many of the vandals I've caught were only on their first or second offences, and reports should really only be made after a final or only warning. As for the semi-prot request, well that was a mistake to post it there, but I'm six months older and wiser now (not to mention fully aware of a separate page for protection requests)! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Neutral Contribs look good, but I echo Coren in that a little more experience is needed. GlassCobra 05:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here to oppose over, your contribs are terrific and clueful. Unfortunately, there isn't yet enough here to support either, per others above. Very much looking forward to support #2 in a few months time of experience if this doesn't pass. Keeper ǀ 76 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Screw that. The only thing holding me back is "edit count", which isn't enough for me to not support. You've put your time in, and have good clue. Moving to support. Keeper ǀ 76 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very close to being an oppose I'm not in a mean mood.... but your edit history is too weak.... Personally i suggest you wait four months. However the answers to your questions were spot-on. I will support you IF you make another 50 edits before the poll closes Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Itfc, I hate to bite, but your support condition seems to indicate that you believe that edit count and frequency are the determinate factors in supporting or not supporting a candidate for adminship. Everyone has differing standards, of course, but whether or not a candidate makes 50 edits in the 36 hours before their RfA ends would, in my opinion, offer little insight as to the qualities of that candidate (from WP:AAAD: "For all practical purposes, everyone editing Wikipedia is a volunteer; it's inappropriate to demand a certain level of contribution from anyone.") Your neutral rationale is pretty sound, but I'm not so sure about applying such an explicit volumetric condition to an RfA !vote. haz (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2008 (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.