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

Kingpin13[edit]

Final (115/0/0); Ended 10:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Kingpin13 (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present Kingpin13 as a possible candidate for adminship. He started editing in 2008, and has since then amassed over 40k edits, including 4000 deleted - with close to a thousand AIV reports. He ran for adminship in June 2009, and received significant support, but also some opposition - primarily because the majority of his edits consisted of anti-vandalism, and some minor concerns over CSD. In fact, I found myself unable to fully support back then.

However, I now believe the candidate is fully qualified. A few bullet points:

Thanks for your consideration. decltype (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: A few of the areas I work in at the moment would be easier with the sysop tools. I plan to help out at AIV and CSD, both of which I already have experience in. Also, I would find the tools helpful with my bot work, in blocking bots, checking bots' deleted contributions, approving bots for AWB/Confirmed etc. I occasionally help out around RFPERM, although without +sysop there's not much to do there, if granted the tools I would spend some time reviewing requests there. I may also help out at DYK and EF, although I don't have as much knowledge of these areas, so I'd certainly start out slow.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Since one of the main objections to my last RfA was lack of content work, I've been trying to do a bit more in this regard. I've contributed six DYK articles, and worked on various other articles (including several which were nominated for deletion). Out of the articles I've worked on, I'm most pleased with Katie Piper. Content aside, I believe my work with bots as a member of BAG, and my own bots, are some of the best things I've given to the project, and something I now spend a lot of my time here working on.
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: Avoiding conflicts with others is something I try to do, but naturally sometimes I do end up in one. I'm not going to pick any specific examples, but when I do get involved I try to make sure that I don't respond rudely or uncivilly, or while I'm stressed. I guess to deal with the stress I take a bit of time off Wiki.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
4. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. Firstly, I should make it clear I don't plan to spend a lot of (if any) time closing AfDs (especially not ones as complex as this :D), so I doubt I would find myself in this situation. In this particular case the debate seems to be mainly over the notability of the subject, rather than breaches of BLP policy (although the two are naturally closely related). It's also mentioned by the delete (and keep) !votes that the article is badly sourced (with at least one source being a Wikimedia site), so WP:V may not be satisfied, and since this is a BLP reliable sources are paticularly important. From the debate it seems that there is no "easily determined consensus". While no consensus should default to keep, if it looked like the article was a major breach of WP:BLP then it may be okay to delete it without consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT, or if the subject had asked for deletion, and was relatively unknown, then per deletion policy. As the article stands, with an alleged lack of RS to back up the statements, it may well be the case that BLP policy is not kept to. But it should also be considered if the badly sourced content is minor, and if there are enough reliable sources for the article to be expectable after editing out the badly sourced content, as some editors claim there are. In this case, I would default to keep. Not being able to see the article, it's hard for me to make a real decision on this, so I'd prefer not to. But I hope I've explored deletion of BLPs enough for your satisfaction :).
5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. I think the BLP policy is good at the moment, and I agree completely with the rationale behind it. I think it's important that we are extremely careful with content that can affect peoples' real lives. Other then that I don't have much of a personal opinion on BLP, but I do try to keep to the policy. I've done a small amount of article work on BLPs, and, as with all my article work, I try to make sure that everything in the article is cited to a reliable source, and keeps within our policies.
6. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?
A. Outing is obviously a serious matter, and if I came across this I would revert, make sure the user is blocked, and request oversight, as I've done in the past. It's a slightly different case if the user voluntarily posts personal details. If they are "below the age of majority", then I would probably find myself following the advice at WP:CHILD, even though this is an essay, I, as someone who thinks personal information on the internet should be handled carefully, think it provides very good advice. I would remove the personal information, and discuss the dangers of posting it with the user.
Additional optional questions from Minimac94
7. Explain CSD: G6
A: G6 is for "technical" deletions, these include deletions needed when moving a page (to move a page over a current one) or to merge histories (merge the histories of two articles together, by moving article A over article B (deleting B), and then undeleting B's revisions), to clean up after a copy-and-paste move, deleting un-needed disambig pages (orphaned disambigs, which link to no pages, or one/two but there is a primary topic), and deleting maintenance categories which are no longer needed due to their age (such as old CAT:PROD categories). It should only be used when the deletion is uncontroversial. If there are any objections the the deletion they should be addressed fully.
Additional question fron NerdyScienceDude
8. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A: A block is a site-wide restriction from editing, where the software makes it impossible for the blocked user to edit any page (although depending on the block settings a user could still edit their talk page). Whereas a ban is more specific, banning users from editing in certain areas (e.g. AfD, and sometimes the whole site, in which case a block is used) or ways (e.g. 1RR). Bans are normally set by ArbCom, or the community, although Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation can place bans too. The banned user can still technically edit in violation of their ban, although if they did they may be blocked, their edits reverted/deleted, and the time of the ban might restart (bans and blocks normally last for a certain period of time, although sometimes they are indefinite). Both the block and the ban are meant to prevent damage, the main difference is the way it is enforced.
Additional question from Peterbrown
9. Do you believe that articles on wikipedia have inherent rights? If so, what are those rights?
A:


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/Kingpin13 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Impressed with the way Katie Piper was written, especially since the article is quite contentious. Concerns raised in the previous RfA regarding content work had been dealt with. —Dark 10:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support A user I have seen in action many times and from this I agree should be given the mop. Polargeo (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Have seen him doing good work. Excellent work at different parts of the encyclopedia; will be an excellent admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support. He seems to be really good at reverting vandalism. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support An admirable contributor, from what I've seen. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support — JamesR (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support I supported last time as in my view the then recent CSD tagging had improved from earlier times when I and others had declined some of this candidate's tags. I've since been impressed with the way that Kingpin has diplomatically dealt with me and others at his bot request. ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Good Contributor and user has improved and overcame concerns raised in previous RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Kingpin13 has demonstrated that he is able to learn from previous mistakes and address concerns raised previously. As WSC says above, his behavior since the last RFA is very impressive. Also, I trust decltype's judgment. Regards SoWhy 13:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support - per above praise Ajbpearce (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. I supported last time, and he appears to be a better candidate now than before. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support per nom. Tan | 39 14:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Had it watchlisted Support. –xenotalk 14:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. I think we forgot to flip the switch on this admin... –Juliancolton | Talk 15:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support Good job since last time.  fetchcomms☛ 15:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support--Zvn (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Long overdue. Tim Song (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Assumed you were anyway. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Trustworthy, won't abuse the tools. hmwith☮ 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Looks good, concerns from previous RfA have been adequately addressed. GlassCobra 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support – a great user, happy to support. Aiken ♫ 18:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Sure, why not. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support I see no problems, and feel that this candidate can be trusted with the tools -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support - It seems that this candidate has taken to heart the criticisms and comments from his previous RfA. That shows a willingness to branch out and heed advice. For that you have my support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support. In a second RfA, I like to see an editor who has built upon the comments in the first and Kingpin seems to have done so. No reason not to support! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Absolutely Long overdue, great contributions here and I could only see Kingpin helping more with the additional tools. --Terrillja talk 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support Looks like a good candidate.--iBentalk/contribs 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Mr.Z-man 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Technically knowledgeable, all-round contributor. -- Mentifisto 20:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support Good candidate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support No concerns. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support, sure. Decent answers to the BLP questions. I'm alright if you don't have "much of a personal opinion" on the policy as long as you know how to firmly apply it. JamieS93 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. So very overdue. Thoughtful and clueful, Kingpin is a strong candidate. ceranthor 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Looks good. RayTalk 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support — A helpful user who can be trusted with the tools. Good luck! Airplaneman talk 00:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support. About time. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support Any reason not to? No opposes, and no mistakes that I can see. (Correct me if I'm wrong).--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. 他是好 Doc Quintana (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support A good choice for the tools indeed. Of all the active BAG members, I think Kingpin13 is one of only a couple of non-admins. The community already trusted him with that position, and it’s time we trusted him this one as well. He has more than enough experience to be helpful at WP:AIV and CAT:SD, and if he would find the tools helpful with his bot work I’m more than happy to oblige him. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Sure Don't see why not. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support Good answer to my question. Also has a long experience too. Minimac94 (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support. I trust you, and have found myself thinking that you'd be a good admin on at least two occasions. Nice to see that you've taken the concerns from last time constructively. Jafeluv (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support - responses and BAG performance -- Tawker (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Yep. From my limited experience, I'd say that he's a very helpful person, and unlikely to burn the joint down. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 09:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Are you sure he's not one already? Great DYK work and all around contributor.  7  09:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support,--NotedGrant Talk 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. About time Secret account 14:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards due to no memorable negative experiences in any AFDs, candidate has rollback, candidate is a veteran editor, and User:Kingpin13/thanks is nice to see. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support - Wha?! All this time I thought he was an admin, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support - A fantastic candidate who has become well-rounded since the previous AfD. -- Atama頭 17:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support Theleftorium 18:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support. I like the way he produced John Willis out of a mess that was about to be speedied. [1] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support A great contributer and a great vandalism fighter MaenK.A.Talk 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support this dedicated user who is here to improve the encyclopaedia. Good clueful answers to questions. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support - Very good editor, should have been an admin a long time ago. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support - per above. smithers - talk 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. 'Support Josh Parris 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support Ran through your thousands, and thousands, and thousands, and thousands, and thousands of edits back to April 2009, all uncontroversial rather low-key anti-vandal stuff; it's really difficult to see exactly what you represent. You took responsibility for Jon Willis, you do show the occasional glimpse of pretty good reasoning, you sure can, and I believe Prince Bored can be trusted. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Strong CSD and antivandalism work. Will make a very good admin. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support - Very impressive contributor who deserves to be an admin. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support - Everything I would have wanted to say about Kingpin has already been said above.--Kudpung (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support --Church of emacs (Talk) 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support - Plenty qualified and looks great. Gosox(55)(55) 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support, knowledgeable and very competent. — The Earwig @ 17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support Logan Talk Contributions 17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support No problems here :). Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support. Qualified, experienced, and knowledgable candidate. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support Great contributor makes good admin material. Looks good to me. -- Marek.69 talk 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Oppose: Does not use monkey nostrils in each answer to question Support Great editor, clean log, very nice contribs... the whole nine yards! Buggie111 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support - pretty impressive resume. No concerns here. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Well rounded, net positive. I'd say something inspirational, but it's already been said. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. jo --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support able to take criticism and improve accordingly- good qualities for anyone. Liquidluck✽talk 06:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Sole Soul (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support Is another expression of wholehearted support needed? If so, you got it from me -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support Why Not! -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Good observations of Kingpin13. Happy to support. Acalamari 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support Gladly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Certainly, I can see no reason to oppose. GedUK  19:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Snow support I like snow... but California rarely gets any :( DustiSPEAK!! 20:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. — JoJo • Talk • 21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support-Definitely worthy to hold the mop.Smallman12q (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Strong support Candidate has tons of activity in the areas he is going to work in, great contributions, and a high edit count. Plus, we need more admins at WP:AIV. Good luck! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support - All of the above. Shadowjams (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support. Piling it on. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support as last time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support via Groupthink. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 10:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support —  Cargoking  talk  20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Strong Support: An ideal Candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support Sound knowledge of policy, and experienced in the areas you wish to work in. ThemFromSpace 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Full Support: Although my !vote is not needed, I fully support this admin. (see User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support Given Coffee's question and your careful considerate response, I feel confident you won't abuse Admin/IAR. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support - Nearly 100 supports, with no opposes, and no neutrals (anymore), that pretty much gives you my automatic support. That and there's absolutely nothing worrisome at all with your answers and conduct. -WarthogDemon 05:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support - One step closer to 100 supports. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support - best of luck. Not that you need it, obviously. (: Ale_Jrbtalk 09:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support - Fully confident that this user meets the criteria! Support number 99! Good luck mate!  Dspradau → talk  15:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support - Very much so. FlyingToaster 15:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support. I think a case could be made for an early closure per WP:SNOW. Şłџğģő 17:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support MBisanz talk 21:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support — finally getting around to supporting. Doesn't appear to be any real concern. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. esto perpetua delirious & lost ☯ ♥hugs♥ 17:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Per NYB Nick (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support, excellent choice for admin. Dreadstar ☥ 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support. I see no reason not to. Valley2city‽ 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 06:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support Anirishwoman (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support. As nom. decltype (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]

Neutral - I was expecting more CSD work. Per every 500 edits, the most things related to speedy deletion I found was 7, and that group of 500 edits was looking back to early December, and in RfA, WYSIWYG. I appreciate your anti-vandalism work though, so good luck! smithers - talk 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)moving to support at 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC). smithers - talkReply[reply]

Most of his CSD work is deleted now. In the last 60 days, he has placed somewhat under 100 CSD tags that resulted in the page being deleted. J.delanoygabsadds 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A true, fair CSD nomination includes the nomination to the author. I only saw 7 notifications then... smithers - talk 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, and I always make sure I warn the creator of the tagging, the only times I don't is when the page is deleted too quickly for me to get to the history (or for the CSDs which don't require it). I think you probably missed a couple of my warnings, probably because I do near' all my CSD tagging manually (due partly to concerns in my last RfA about a high automated edit count), and that means I use custom edit summaries. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You only found 7 warnings since early December? I found one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten – and that only goes back to 22 January. Are you sure you don't want to have another look? Jafeluv (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant to say that per every 500 edits, there was a maximum of seven. However, I did miss those, so I will switch to support. Thanks for clearing it up. smithers - talk 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.
Category