Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gazimoff

Edit count for Gazimoff[edit]

User:Gazimoff

   run at Mon Jul 28 17:35:30 2008 GMT

   Category:              1
   Image talk:            1
   Image:                 22
   Mainspace              1009
   Talk:                  235
   Template talk:         11
   Template:              31
   User talk:             578
   User:                  304
   Wikipedia talk:        263
   Wikipedia:             519
   avg edits per page     2.41
   earliest               20:50, 10 February 2008
   number of unique pages 1236
   total                  2974

   2008/2 49
   2008/3 531
   2008/4 416
   2008/5 406
   2008/6 1044
   2008/7 528

   (green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
   denotes edits without an edit summary)

                 Mainspace
   92 [2]Gameplay of World of Warcraft
   79 [3]World of Warcraft
   58 [4]24: The Game
   40 [5]Criticism of World of Warcraft
   35 [6]WayForward Technologies
   30 [7]The Orange Box
   19 [8]Maressa Orzack
   19 [9]Battle Realms: Winter of the Wolf
   16 [10]Diablo III
   16 [11]Dominions II: The Ascension Wars
   15 [12]Cortex Command
   11 [13]Quest (gaming)
   8  [14]Worms: A Space Oddity
   8  [15]Warcraft (series)
   7  [16]GameRanger

                        Talk:
   45 [17]World of Warcraft
   19 [18]Diablo III
   18 [19]24: The Game
   15 [20]Criticism of World of Warcraft
   10 [21]The Orange Box
   6  [22]World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
   6  [23]Grand Theft Auto IV
   6  [24]Mario Kart Wii
   5  [25]Super Smash Bros. Melee
   5  [26]Discography of Final Fantasy X
   4  [27]FunOrb
   4  [28]Maressa Orzack
   4  [29]Social interaction via MMORPGs
   3  [30]Lorien Trust
   3  [31]F-Zero

                   Image:
   3 [32]Portal screenshot.jpg
   3 [33]24thegamegroup.jpg
   3 [34]24 the game interrogation.jpg
   3 [35]Mario Party 4.jpg
   2 [36]Halflife2 episode2 screenshot.jpg
   2 [37]Modified WoW User Interface.jpg

       Template:
   3 [38]WPCVG Sidebar
   2 [39]Drmspeedy
   2 [40]Drmspeedy4

          Template talk:
   4 [41]Did you know
   4 [42]WikiProject Video games
   2 [43]Infobox Military Person

             User:
   67 [44]Gazimoff
   20 [45]Gazimoff/Articles
   15 [46]Gazimoff/sandbox
   15 [47]Gazimoff/Mentoring
   11 [48]Gazimoff/wow sandbox
   9  [49]Gazimoff/menu
   8  [50]Fritzpoll
   8  [51]Gazimoff/Bookmarks
   7  [52]Gazimoff/Awards
   7  [53]Fritzpoll/header
   7  [54]Fritzpoll/boxstart
   6  [55]Gazimoff/Gallery
   3  [56]Dusti/RfA review
   3  [57]Gazimoff/About me
   2  [58]Cbramble/RfA review

         User talk:
   95 [59]Gazimoff
   40 [60]Keeper76
   10 [61]Krator
   9  [62]Gazimoff/Archive
   9  [63]Wing44
   7  [64]S@bre
   7  [65]Giggy
   7  [66]Fritzpoll
   7  [67]Gazimoff/sandbox
   4  [68]Laser brain
   4  [69]Mjharrison
   4  [70]The-world-court
   4  [71]Malleus Fatuorum
   3  [72]Guyrandom
   3  [73]Wildcats087

                          Wikipedia:
   33 [74]WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Notability
   27 [75]New contributors' help page
   24 [76]RfA Review/Reflect
   24 [77]Help desk
   18 [78]RfA Review
   13 [79]WikiProject Video games/Assessment
   11 [80]Featured article candidates/The Orange Box/archive1
   11 [81]Administrator intervention against vandalism
   10 [82]WikiProject Video games/Peer review/The Orange Box
   9  [83]Featured article candidates/The Orange Box/archive2
   9  [84]Good article nominations
   9  [85]Editor review/Gazimoff
   8  [86]Administrators' noticeboard
   8  [87]WikiProject Video games/Deletion
   6  [88]WikiProject Video games/Cleanup/Automated

                               Wikipedia talk:
   91 [89]WikiProject Video games
   42 [90]RfA Review
   32 [91]Requests for adminship
   19 [92]WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup
   8  [93]WikiProject Video games/Newsletter
   7  [94]Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3
   7  [95]WikiProject Video games/Warcraft
   7  [96]WikiProject Council
   5  [97]Good article nominations
   5  [98]RfA Review/Question
   5  [99]Articles for deletion
   4  [100]Postponed deletion
   4
      [101]WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer
      online games
   4  [102]WikiProject Good articles/Reform
   3  [103]WikiProject Video games/to do

   If there were any problems, please [104]email Interiot or post at
   [105]User talk:Interiot.

The edit count was retrieved from this link at 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC).

Keepcases question[edit]

I was informed Gazimoff will be answering the question. I think its bad form to be blindly undoing it again, for the sack of opinion. I myself do not agree with the question, but this is not my RfA, its not my say, and its not opinion that matters. Synergy 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat related thread on this can be found here: User talk:Xenocidic/Archive 6#MFC RfA (caution: 330kb archive at the time of this post). –xeno (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) My take would be that Gazimoff can re-post the question with his response, if he so chooses. He's surely aware of it, if he's indicated his intent to respond - and it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone would revert him if he re-added it himself. I think the problem here was partially that other editors have expressed concern about Keepcases' RfA questions in the past, which made removing this one a clearer decision. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand and appreciate this. But removing it again, after I expressly stated in my edit summary that it was his wish to keep it there (as he answers other questions), it shouldn't have been removed. This is not a very smart thing to do. Synergy 19:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should really just have a hearty 'ole debate on WT:RFA about what is and is not appropriate. –xeno (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pretty well-established policy that one should not edit or remove someone else's talk-page comments. Having said that, I revert users who blank their talk pages (presumably in an attempt to hide their recent malfeasance), so I understand this is a gray area. I know it may be annoying that I keep showing up on these edits to support Keepscases, but...they are legitimate questions, and as I've said elsewhere, such as in the thread xeno linked to above - they are (as far as I can tell) different every time. You can't study for them. I would prefer to not have the drug-use one, because it did seem sort of when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-ish, and this one is a bit morbid, I agree...but come on. When did we start censoring Wikipedia? Besides, I expect Gazimoff to come up with a good answer to the question. Frank | talk 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a talk page edit... Synergy 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I revert users who blank their talk pages (presumably in an attempt to hide their recent malfeasance)" Why? They're allowed to blank their pages, per this discussion and WP:TALK. If anything, what you are doing is disruptive and bordering on harassment. Looks like you've done it a lot, too. Please stop. SashaNein (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blanking warnings is perfectly acceptable. As Carnildo points out, it means the user has read them. Re-adding the warnings and forcing the user to keep content they do not like on their talk page crosses into harassment quickly. While blanking of relevant warnings is not polite or nice, restoring them is even less polite. We do not keep permanent archives (other than page histories) of users' past misdeeds. Kusma (討論)"

First, despite the cherry-picked quote above, the discussion you linked shows anything but consensus on the matter. Second, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum, not myspace, not a web host, and not many other things. Primarily, I bring these points up because they are consistent with the point that even user talk pages do not "belong" to users. If a user is being disruptive and their talk page is being used to inform other editors of such activity, it is productive to keep that information readily available. Finally, please try to assume good faith, and please follow up further on my talk page (where you already made a comment) if you find there is something more to say on the matter. Frank | talk 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, whatever happens, just sort it out here or at WT:RFA, don't edit war over it please. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Please don't respond to Kurt guys. We don't need any more drama. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, it's degraded to attention seeking now. Boring. — Realist² (Speak) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chill out, you two. No need to get nasty. Channel ® 01:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, people, there's no reason to make accusations of attention seeking of disruption. We're past..and better than that. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kurt is the only opposer, it helps to have at least 1 reply, otherwise tangobot won't tally properly... ;> –xeno (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]