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

Gazimoff[edit]

Final (119/5/4); Closed by Rlevse at 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazimoff (talk · contribs) - Many of you would have known Gazimoff best from his efforts in reforming the very process this he is going through today - the RfA Review. Listening to hundreds of fellow Wikipedians' sentiments, compiling them, seeking understanding and making positive proposals to this mammoth process in today's climate is no easy feat and has greatly impressed upon me when I first came across his review via the RfA Talkpage.

First edited in February 2008, Gazimoff has since come a long way with his intelligent, civil, helpful, co-operative, and thoughtful participation with strong knowledge of policy in discussions and reviews within the various internal processes of Wikipedia, such as the deletion process, good content and featured content. An active contributor to WikiProject Video games he is a fantastic content writer who has the ability to bring an article from near-death to being featured on Did You Know?, and raise another article ridden with tags and trivia to Good Article standards. (The transformation) He also does Newpage patrolling from time to time, reverting vandalism and welcoming newcomers to the encyclopedia, helping them whenever they require any assistance.

Gazimoff has the attitude and the aptitude to be given the mop and bucket, and I believe that with the tools he will be able to make greater contributions to the encyclopedia and make its community a better place for all of us.

I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

My earliest interactions with Gazimoff were at the video games WikiProject; as a raw enthusiastic newbie he had plenty to contribute by way of useful help, advice, and suggestions for improving the encyclopedia. With time, he's just gotten better. He is still a VG regular, does some great work writing articles, and helps out with some metapedian stuff as outlined by Mailor Diablo's excellent nomination. I see no reason not to sysop Gazimoff, who does excellent work in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

I'm Giggy and I approve this message! - 08:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm honoured to accept this nominationGazimoff 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I don't anticipate plunging headlong into admin related duties, but will take things carefully as I get used to completing various tasks. I initially hope to work in WP:AFD by closing discussions fairly and supporting editors with any post-closure questions or needs they may have. I also hope to work in WP:CSD, double-checking articles aganst the criteria before removing them and again supporting contributors with any queries resulting from this. Over time and with further experience I'll also look at expanding this to WP:PROD and WP:AIV. Although I'm relatively fresh to WP:ACC, in the longer term I'd like to be able to support them with some of the admin-only tasks that they currently face, helping to ensure that any potential new contributors get a welcoming experience when they start participating in the project.
Importantly though, I'd still like to continue contributing to articles, helping to clean them up, source them and improve them, and encouraging and supporting others to do the same.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Mailer Diablo has already mentioned, I'm proud of the work that I did to progress 24: The Game to becoming a Good Article. I'm also pleased with my work on WayForward Technologies and Maressa Orzack, being able to flesh out these articles and provide meaningful sourced content. I've also done a fair bit of work for the Warcraft Taskforce, either by creating spinoff articles such as Gameplay of World of Warcraft or by cleaning up existing content in articles such as the main World of Warcraft. All of these are fairly mammoth pieces of work, which I tend to tackle in stages. I also do a bit of gnoming here and there by adding reception sections to articles, adding infoboxes and uploading images, and other similar tasks that improve articles. I still see this work as worthwhile, and something that I'd like to continue, even if it only makes an article easier for a reader to follow.
I'm also pleased with my work on Wikipedia: RfA Review, putting together an understanding of the current process and co-ordinating efforts to provide in-depth analysis of the process. The work there is still ongoing as it's taken much longer than anticipated due to the overwhelmingly high number of responses we received. Having said that, I'm looking forward to completing it and delivering something meaningful back to the project. Over 200 people to took the time to provide feedback, and I bear responsibility for ensuring that their feedback is acknowledged.
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: I think I'm fairly similar to other contributors to Wikipedia, in that I've been exposed to edit conflicts during my time here. Generally I tend to discuss problems on an article's talkpage or directly with the user. For low-traffic talkpages, such as some of the more obscure topics I edit in, I'll kick off a discussion at a wikiproject or similar in order to get a general consensus from other editors who contribute in that field. Wherever possible, I try to explain my thoughts and opinions carefully and clearly so that others can understand my viewpoint, even if they disagree with it, so that we can agree a common approach. Generally, this approach has worked well for me, with the various communities that I interact with being willing to lend a hand resolving issues. I don't anticipate this approach changing should I gain any additional tools - we have a strong ethos of being able to build articles through collaboration and consensus, and I'd want to continue to be a part of that.
For the various actions that I take, such as as nominating an article for deletion, occasionally I run into conflicts with other editors. Interestingly, WayForward Technologies was an example of one of these. After searching for sources on the company, I nominated it at AfD. As the discussion proceeded, new sources came to light in the discussion (which closed as no consensus) and also in a quite strong follow-up discussion on my talkpage. From this, I took responsibility to rebuild the article from the ground up, sourcing carefully as I went. I have no idea if the anonymous editor has noticed the changes that I made, but I hope he's pleased with the result.
More recently, an article I originally tagged for speedy deletion as copyright infringement became the subject of a topic at WP:AN/I. Despite the escalation that followed through the article's talkpage and eventually AN/I, I retained a cool head and carefully explained my actions, offering help and advice to the editor to avoid an occurrence in the future. I think that this approach, of being careful, clear and supportive is the right one, although I'm always welcome to feedback or questions as they come up.
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
4. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
A:I've put some thought into this, and will go with what I think is an honest answer. Do I think cool-down blocks are acceptable? Not really, as they can lead to inflaming a situation. But that response tends to ignore the wider picture or take into account other events, something which you need to do when entering this type of situation. Is the editor being persistently and grossly uncivil? Are they edit warring? Are they persistently making personal attacks or engaging in repeated vandalism? This doesn't mean hunting around for a reason to block, but taking an open view based on a larger picture of events. It's through blocking based on an editor's disruptive behaviour that we give them the opportunity to identify where they were at fault and support them in avoiding that fault in the future. Blocking based on a need for the editor to cool down, by contrast, does not give them an indication of why their behaviour was disruptive or how they can develop themselves in order to prevent a reoccurrence. I hope that does for an answer, but feel free to ask a follow-up if I've missed something.Gazimoff 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xenocidic

5. 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:Another good question. Let’s break it down. Firstly, by being the one to impose the block, it would be against custom for me to make a decision on the unblock request if we follow the notes at WP:GAB. That being said, the blocking policy shows that a block isn’t there to punish an editor but to prevent further damage or disruption. With all this in mind, I would probably leave a note recommending that they’re introduced to the various areas of Wikipedia (I noticed there was no-one welcoming what I assume is a new IP user) and encouraged to join a wikiproject related to the area they want to edit in. I'd also possibly suggest that they look at adoption, all the while reminding them that repeated vandalism is likely to result in reblocking. Everyone deserves a second chance and some really strong contributors are editors who’ve been given an opportunity like this. Hope this sounds reasonable, but again feel free to ask a follow-up.Gazimoff 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from  Channel ® 

6. Have you edited under another name before your start in feb 2008? I'm asking because becoming an admin with just 5 months WP experience and under 3000 edits sounds very fast to me. With all due respect for your work, of course. (Answering this question is truly optional. Feel free to skip it if I'm digging into privacy issues.)
A:It’s a fair question. I’ve been what I guess you would call a consumer of Wikipedia for probably a year or more now, reading articles on a wide range of topics. It never ceases to amaze me how much effort so many people put into their contributions here, either through article work, photos or images, or even sounds. So, after some time doing this, I started to think that I might be able to lend a hand here and there, either by providing sourced information or by cleaning articles up, discussing my ideas with established editors beforehand. I’d never edited Wikipedia before that initial point, either anonymously or on another account. From that initial decision, I’ve branched out into other areas, asking for help or advice when I need it and helping others in turn. I think that being able to quickly gain a familiarity and understanding of the mechanics of Wikipedia is as much a testament to the many genuinely helpful people I’ve encountered who lend their energies to the project as much as anything else. Again, I hope I’ve been able to do your question justice, but please feel free to follow up if you’d like any clarification.Gazimoff 07:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Brasil Miami Connexion,

7. Are you fluent in any languages other than English?
A:Regrettably, no. I have a basic understanding of French and some small ability to speak Welsh (I'm able to recite the full name of Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, for example), but I wouldn't say I'm fluent in any other language. More recently, I've considered learning Spanish, and hope to take evening classes in it at some stage in the near future. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 08:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note; 3 stupid questions removed. —Giggy 04:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 actually. Prodego talk
Well there you go. I found the languages question borderline useful. —Giggy 09:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The language question might have been in more useful in meta-related rights discussions. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. I'm Giggy and someone removed my first support! 22:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Just saw this pop up. I realize I'm adding support rather quickly, but this is just one of the names that is "automatic" for me. Superb contributor, both in article building and collaboration, and with clueful Wikipedia/meta activities. His methodical, thoughtful approach to Wikipedia is greatly lacking in the admin core. Wikipedia has much to gain from Gazimoff+sysop. Easy, no hesitatiion support. Keeper ǀ 76 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support. I am one hundred and ninety nine percent sure Gazimoff is right and ready for this task. I've overlooked a great deal in supporting, on purpose. I feel that as an editor with his level of knowledge, common sense and clue, he can properly and slowly learn how to use the new buttons. Its not a difficult things to learn, in any event. Hes ready, willing, and able. Two great noms to boot. What can I say? Theres no way I cannot support this request. Synergy 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Net positive. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm Naerii and ... yeah. 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per Keeper...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per nomination. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Hell yes. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support; an easy one, based on my few interactions with him, Keeper's comments, and finding no reason not to do so. S. Dean Jameson 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per experience with this user's attitude and experience. As it happens, I participated a little in WayForward Technologies (expressing a keep opinion in the AfD) and more than a little in the Open Web Foundation article (just check its talk page), which was a bumpy ride through a process that worked as intended.  Frank  |  talk  17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Should make a fine admin, had a look at some edits and talk page archives and everything looked good. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seen Gazimoff around several times, and from what I've observed, he has good judgment. Acalamari 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I think one of the most important qualities in an administrator is an ability to keep calm and to show, to a certain extent, empathy with an editor who has been at what might loosely be described as the negative aspects of Wikipedia, such as content deletion. It's only through these means that we can retain new editors who are just a little unsure of how things work around here. I think Gazimoff, in addition to the various other qualities expressed by more prominent individuals above, has demonstrated this ability in his various interactions around the project, having been described as helpful by newer editors, and in more heated disputes such as the recent one at AN/I. Large net benefit to the project, and will make a fine admin. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Has been very helpful with templates. MBisanz talk 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 29#A humble request., i.e. receptive to my advice posted at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gazimoff#Reviews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support What? Isn't he an admin already? I was so sure he was. But if that's a choice now, I happily support it. Everything looks more than great in this case :-) So#Why 18:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Sensible and reliable. Helped even further by endorsement from Mailer Diablo and Giggy. Axl (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. All contributions are thoughtful and considered. Will make a very fine admin. nancy talk 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support, per the above. Gazimoff is, as noted, an editor with large amounts of clue, whose adminship can only result in a net benefit to the project. I'll add that his work in organizing much of the RfA Review is most impressive, as are his contributions elsewhere. A strong candidate. ...and had I known he was running, I would have nominated him myself. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per Keeper. Will be a net positive. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:3<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">2, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Candidate looks good. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. support you aren't an admin already? Protonk (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Gazimoff has been a quick learner; he knows policies and procedures. Also very civil and communicative. He also improves articles (bonus points: articles about Blizzard, nonetheless). I am confident he'll make a good admin. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per a number of pleasant interactions. User is friendly, civil and helpful, has a clue, and therefore will make a fine admin. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support great user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support - He's a good dude. He's great at what he does. His RfA improvement idea was great. He also built a blocking template for me when no one else could be bothered. He should be given the tools on being so helpful alone. He's also English... which is like... really, really good. All admins should be English. We make great tea. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Two thumbs up. Shereth 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support — I've seen him around, seems clueful, and good answers to questions. For what it's worth, the blocking admin should never decline an unblock request, but I see no need for them to wait for another admin if they're unblocking (as long as the block wasn't applied per a community consensus, of course). –xeno (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support without hesitation. J.delanoygabsadds 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Would make a good admin. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I strongly disagree with Scaria assertion that being English is a reason to support someone for adminship. I am supporting despite him being English. Jon513 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be racist please, John. ;-) ScarianCall me Pat! 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Seems reasonable enough, sure. user:Everyme 20:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. All in all, a good addition to the crew. — Athaenara ✉ 20:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support Not an admin already?!?! LittleMountain5 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've seen how you act and respond to things, and think you deserve this. Yamakiri TC § 07-28-2008 • 20:41:51
  37. Support Excellent answers and contributions, Gazimoff will make a fine admin. Rje (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Indeed A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support--LAAFan 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I'm User:Pedro and I .... have a sub page ... or something like that :) Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. · AndonicO Engage. 21:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Per Pedro, like...net positive and stuff. Also, meets my criteria. I trust from the answer to Q1 that he will work slow and prudently. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support No issues with this editor, doubt he will abuse tools. America69 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support. My interactions with this editor have been positive in all instances. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Interactions with user have been great. Soxπed93(blag) 23:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support after reviewing his edits, I consider him fit and proper for the mop. --Frederick day (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Sockpuppet comment indented. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support For great justice and epic lulz and don't go to www.crashyourbrowser.con --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, definitely. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 00:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support from me and the otters. Seems to know what they're doing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - trustworthy editor. Answer to Q4 seems ok. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - per this. Doing good work on a 24 article gets my !vote. Plus I think you'd be a fine admin. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support- All the evidence I've seen indicates you'll use the admin tools responsibly and appropriately. You have a thorough understanding and respect for Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and you know what makes a good article. Reyk YO! 02:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - yes please! Thoughtful answers given to the questions, respectful, enthusiastic, takes initiative and I'm very impressed with all the work put into the RfA review. -- Natalya 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - good editor. sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support per excellent AfD participation. His work there shows a fairminded editor, and fairmindedness is my chief criterion for adminship.  Mr. IP, Defender of Open Editing  04:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Will do fine. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per excellent interactions with the editor and well thought out answers to the admin questions. I absolutely trust him with the tools and am confident he'll be as great an admin as he is an editor. Vickser (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. miranda 07:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, I've worked with Gazimoff in the past and found him more than amicable and capable. I have little doubt he'll make a fine admin. -- Sabre (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Of course. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - A candidate that brings us all together... even socks.  ;) Qb | your 2 cents 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - WHHN?  Asenine  12:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support Strong candidate. No concerns. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Excellent user. SpencerT♦C 13:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support—This is the first time I have said "He's not already an admin???" I've been a worker bee under his direction on the RFA Review and I am simply amazed that a) he's not already an admin, and b) he's been here such a short time. Someone so BOLD as to take on this effort is someone I trust with the tools. I was really impressed when he changed his mind based on consensus. Good luck, mate! Livitup (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Well thought-out answers to the questions. Jonathunder (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Skomorokh. Although I was initially reticent about the the editor's pattern of commenting in admin areas in a manner that suggested mandarinism. If one was uncharitable, one might conclude that the much vaunted RfaReview seems to have stalled at the "review" phase after it had been insured that every influential potential supporter had heard about it, and that it seems highly unusual to "run for office" when you are in the middle of crusading to reform the "electoral process" (analogy only). To an uncharitable eye, seeking "coaching" by another name is also indicative of mandarinism, as is chumminess with cabalists. But after reviewing Gazimoff's edits, the challenge of mandarinism does not seem to stick; he/she does not make brownosing comments at administrator's noticeboards; does not busybody new editors; is "here for the right reasons" i.e. to collect GA's, FA's and DYK's rather than barnstars (only half joking here); editing patterns show an active life outside Wikipedia, diminishing the possibility of being an obsessive, controlling drama queen admin; shows measure and judgment and is unlikely based on the evidence to use administratrorship in a reckless power-crazed or hierarchical manner; and on reflection, both the mentoring and RfaReview seem in good faith. I hope the glory of being a janitor does not deter Gazimoff from the important work of building content, that Gazimoff shows a little more independence and less team spirit as an admin, and helps all and sundry to just write a damn encyclopaedia. Strong support. 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support No concerns here. --Rodhullandemu 15:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support No concerns, looks like he would make a great admin :). Mifter (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Giggy's and Mailer Diablo's nominations effectively summarise the candidate well. Rudget 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Sceptre (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - looks solid and I haven't seen a valid oppose so promotion time it is -- Tawker (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Will make a fine admin. tabor-drop me a line 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Great contributor. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-29 19:26
  75. Support I've encountered this user before on RfA and I think he'll make a great admin. In less than 6 mos, he has amassed 1000 mainspace edits, 500 WP edits, and 260 WP talk edits. He has demonstrated an in-depth level of policy comprehension; the answers to the questions just reinforce that. Gave a great answer to Xeno's question, and a wonderful, well-thought out answer to Kurt's infamous question. All of his edits are made to actively improving the encyclopedia. Good luck, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. I don't see anything reason not to support. Clean record, good use of edit summaries, etc. is all here. He does not have many edits, but he seems to have enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest, what would you consider many edits? 3,000 is a good amount for me in supporting an RfA. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have about as many edits as Gazimoff and I don't cosider myself having a plenty of edits. Maybe 4,000-5,000 would be normal. Of course, quality is what counts, not quantity. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Definitely a standout member of "people who aren't admins and clearly should be" to me. Knows what he's talking about (as demonstrated by the questions) and can put it into practice (as demonstrated by his varied and intelligent WP: space contributions). ~ mazca t | c 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Weak Support Great answers to questions. #5 may be a little easy, but just a great user, even with little experience. Meisfunny Gab 21:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (changed from support to weak support)[reply]
  79. Support. Clearly dedicated to the project. Wizardman 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - This user has come such a long way in just 5 months of editing. Lradrama 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I find no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support I could have sworn I supported days ago =/ --Nacimota [ T | C | WC+ ] 10:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support He is a perfect admin, he just needs the Userbox!! :) My Account (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - I feel that Gazimoff is well-experienced enough and a very responsible user who would not misuse the admin tools. Good answers to the questions show a knowledge of policy and rules, and I think that Gaz would make a great administrator based on the responsible, level-headedness I've seen from him. Good luck with your mop! :-) Jamie☆S93 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Solid contrib history good answers to questions. My personal interactions with you show patience, understanding, and that you are able and willing to ask questions to clarify things when need be. You'll be a solid addition. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - No doubt. Great editor, intelligent, clueful, polite, helpful, all that jazz. Will be great. LaraLove|Talk 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Would make use of admin tools. --Boguslav (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong support per his rfa reform work and my review. Thanks again and good luck! --Cameron* 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, all my interactions with Gazimoff have made me feel that he's a solid, helpful and reliable Wikipedia contributor. --Stormie (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Has been very helpful so far. --Kaaveh (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support: User appears to be mature , thoughtful and knowledgeable.. Answers are simply awesome...I support you inspite of being less than 6 months here...No reasons to not trust you... ( I strongly oppose one of the reasons in the Support #26, not really expected from an admin either, just my 2 cents) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support per all previous supports and nominators. Seddσn talk Editor Review 14:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support He has taken the initiative and been bold in clearing out cruft on World of Warcraft which is not an infrequently edited, viewed, or discussed article and everything came out for the better. I have nothing but the strongest faith that he would demonstrate similarly excellent dedication and judgment as an admin. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Ashton1983 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, no good reason not to. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Have seen this user often, is a reliable person w/ good intentions. IceUnshattered (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Familiar with the candidate, no issues. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support He won't abuse the tools, seen him around a bit and he's decent etc. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Good answers to the questions, and a very good contributer to Wikipedia, especially in some administrative areas. Certainly acts like an administrator, and would certainly be a great one with. Will do just fine with the tools. Gazimoff has my trust. WP:100! :) -- RyRy (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Good thing that the candidate wants to work at C:CSD, WP:AfD and WP:AIV. I believe you'll be a net positive to this project. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. The noms outline the good characteristics of the candidate very well. Clueful answers to the questions, great article work, friendly and patient manner. I think you'll be a great admin. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong support per nom, question answers, and especially thoughtful and honest user page, which gives me a positive impression of this candidate as a person. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support per the language question!!!! Actually, I have no problem trusting this user with the tools. I'm impressed by his level-headedness, his rational approach, his knowledge and experience, his ability to communicate clearly, and his honesty. Good answer to question 1. It shows great responsibility and honesty. Will make a great sysop. Okiefromokla questions? 00:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support: per Kurt, whose frequent Opposes because candidates don't take enough of a side to suit him bemuse me.  RGTraynor  03:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, and in protest of Kurt's oppose below. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  107. Support - absolutely no concerns here. Excellent track record & good answers to the questions. Should be a fine admin - Alison ❤ 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. 'Support. I first saw Gazimoff on IRC about a month ago. Since then, on the few times I've spoken with him, my interactions with him have been extremely positive, and I think he has shown excellent judgement, as well as skills to be a good admin, not to mention his excellent manners. Best of luck. :) Qst (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - /me drools. Gazimoff is a very dedicated editor, with works beyond my wildest dreams, he is definitely ready for such a job. He's doing things well, I must say.Mitch32(UP) 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I almost forgot to get to this. But I didn't. :-) Gazimoff is a very hardworking editor (among other things) and I'm sure he'll transfer that skill to adminship.--KojiDude (C) 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. I was sure this guy was an admin, and thought of him as one for quite a few months. He's extremely helpful all around the project, and will make a fantastic sysop. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. [1] User:Krator (t c) 11:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. 'Support' Good user, dedicated and I cant see him abusing anything ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. I have had only excellent interactions with this user over on the CVG. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Why not? Bart133 (t) (c) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Nearly-didn't-beat-the-clock support —Animum (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. :D This guy's great. Hope I made the clock. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Strong Support Has been very helpful, and is on IRC a lot (which is good!). ≈ MindstormsKid 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Good participation throughout Wikipedia, good answers to questions. ~AH1(TCU) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per answer to #4, although at least he took a side (which is admirable in and of itself; he just took the wrong side). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No he did not. I found his answer very well thought out. Cool down blocks correctly only lead to inflammation. Talking if that works is preferable. Blocking should be preventative. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, just as much as I am entitled to say your opinion smacks against the face of community spirit. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree too Nonvocal, but this has already been beaten to this and Kurt refuses to change his mind. The best thing to do is to just ignore it. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 06:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think ignoring it is good. It needs to be discussed and debated... debunked even. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, he really is entitled to his opinion. To him (just like lots of us in the above questions) there is a right and a wrong answer. Protonk (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Kurt, but I don't think it calls for an oppose.  Asenine  12:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    Neither do I, so I remain supported. But who knows, everyone has their reasons (even if their reasons motivate them to vote no every time). Protonk (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's stop giving Kurt the attention he craves. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think I crave it? That's absurd... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I can not support for admin any candidates with less then six months of experience --T-rex 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When this RFA closes on Aug 4, Gazimoff will be exactly 6 days shy of the 6 month mark. Just an FYI, not badgering. Keeper ǀ 76 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that we all have our arbitrary criteria, sometimes numerical/statistical in nature, but given the close proximity as Keeper has brought up, do you really feel so impelled to oppose on this hair splitting reason? Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A few days shy is still a few days shy. You have to draw the line somewhere. If Gazimoff was willing to wait another month then I would be willing to reconsider. However, he did not and as such comes short of my criteria for six months with the project. It is not my fault that he didn't wait an additional twenty days. --T-rex 01:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it his fault that he didn't know about your criteria, therefore did not wait for an extra few days? —Dark talk 07:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not trying to blame Gazimoff, but that doesn't give him that extra month of experience either. --T-rex 13:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for going the extra step to explain your rationale, T-rex. It's a perfectly valid opinion. Keeper ǀ 76 14:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose per NSK92. Just not enough to know if I can trust you to be responsible with the tools yet. SashaNein (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I'm sorry, I just can't support any admin that does not know Spanish (and to a lesser extent, Portugese). Furthermore, does not seem familiar enough with the policies here. Brasil Miami Connexion (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm questioning the validity/integrity of this oppose based on the strange comment regarding language and the overall edit count. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a sock puppet of a banned user so I'm being bold and striking it out. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No hablo espanol. Someone pleae remove my bit-o. Keeper ǀ 76 03:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose Gazimoff shows thus far the makings of an able mopnbucketman. One can never predict whether more hanging out and/or more getting stuck in at WP:AN, WP:AFD and the like would make any difference. But I feel that the opportunity to learn from more such exposure and experience is worth taking before getting the tools. Gazimoff has been here for just 5 months. Furthermore, the candidate built presence and mainspace focus in the area of video games: one which is lively and sometimes controversial (being popular with trolls and vandals as well as the opinionated and immature) but isn't IMO one which gives satisfactory evidence of the eclecticism of WP and its users. Not withstanding all the assistance and advice available, an admin has to make and stand by difficult decisions themselves and I think he could only benefit from a bit more RL time to prepare for that. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per JayHenry and Plutonium27. They make very valid points and the more I think about it, the more I believe they are right. Furthermore, I think if Gazimoff's main work of the last month hadn't been on RfA Review his own RfA would have been closed as hopeless before you could say "snow".  Channel ®   00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Simply can't decide. Despite the answer to my Q6 (thanks!) I still don't feel good about it. A lot of good work on RfA review, sure, and the regular RfA voters all say Gazimoff's great, fine, but I'm not convinced yet. However, I can't seriously oppose either. His work so far is good and just opposing for the reason "too fast" doesn't make sense to me. So it's neutral. Sorry, Gazimoff. Congratulations anyway, it seems this one is going to breeze through. Easy ride.  Channel ®   12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to oppose  Channel ®   00:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. An excellent editor, but less than 6 months of having a named WP account is really rather too fast for adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When this RFA closes on Aug 4, Gazimoff will be exactly 6 days shy of the 6 month mark. Just an FYI, not badgering. Keeper ǀ 76 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment in the oppose section echoing this sentiment. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but for me 6 months plus/minus epsilon is still too short and I would have felt the same if, say, it had been 6 month and 10 days rather than 6 months minus 5 days. It is a matter of personal opinion, but I myself would not feel comfortable supporting any admin candidate with less than (roughly) a year of WP experience, maybe around 8-9 months in the case of a particularly outstanding record. Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely fair - thank you for the clarification. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Wisdom89, thank you for clarifying, Nsk92. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm torn on this one. On one side, the candidate appears to certainly have a clue and would be a solid person to have on the admin team. On the other side, I'm a little concerned that the candidate has spent a rather signficant portion of their time on one specific area of the project. On these two factors, primarily, I'm declaring myself neutral, but will not be at all upset if the candidate is successful. Good luck! --Winger84 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Judging from niceness and general mellowness of the candidate I'm not really concerned he'd be abusive, but I can't support. It looks to me like approaching Wikipedia as if it's an MMORPG, with the goal of gaining enough XP to get a new level. It's perhaps unsurprising that MMORPGs appear to be the candidate's only real interest with regard to editorial content as well. The success of this so far seems like more confirmation to me that socializing with the RFA regulars gets a candidate a lot farther than any actual contributions to the project. If we had the exact same candidate, minus the RFA participation, I don't think this would be passing. It seems to me that previous candidates with this general profile of contributions have been somewhere between irrelevant and actively harmful. I wish you luck finding a role as an anomaly. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outrageous. Synergy 06:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I interpret that as some sort of intent to ask a question? I'm happy to discuss or clarify my views. --JayHenry (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You should take it as a statement, unless it proceeds a question mark. This RfA has focused on Gazimoff's contributions (RfA Review and article), his temperament, and the communities trust. Summing that up as socializing with the RFA regulars gets a candidate a lot farther than any actual contributions to the project is indeed outrageous. I took this for a joke at first sight (too bad it isn't one). Synergy 08:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not doing it because I've interacted with Gazimoff a great deal and believe JayHenry's analysis to be untrue based on my experience. However, I would consider an oppose with this rationale to be absolutely sound, and indeed, more justified than the majority of opposition we see to RfA. TO dismiss it in one word is outrageous, for lack of a better word... —Giggy 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Giggy. I am in the neutral section and don't really see what's outrageous about expressing some reservations. It's been the case for too long that mild-mannered participation at RFA, and little participation elsewhere, was the surest way to become an administrator (and certainly to earn "the communities trust"). I'm not saying he's going to go delete the Main Page like The Random Editor did. But RFAs like this--102 supports and counting on a thin resume of narrow encyclopedia work--is the sort of thing that's exasperating to contributors who spent years working quietly on the encyclopedia only to flame out at RFA for not knowing how to jump through some arbitrary hoop that the RFA-regs like to throw around. --JayHenry (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've refrained from explaining here out of respect. If you want my reasons, you're more than welcome to my talk page. Synergy 20:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you seem to think that dismissing my comments with a single outrageous was the way to make "Wikipedia a better, more friendly, and more successful project", I'll admit I'm not terribly interested in the less respectful version. You seem to have decided to overlook a great deal when evaluating me as well. Judging from your comments on Giggy's page you not only misunderstood what I was saying, but aren't interested in finding out what I meant. If you're interested in discussing why I feel this way, or if I should have phrased my initial comment differently, I'm actually quite willing to discuss that. If you just want to harp about my outrageous "ABF", I think I'll pass. --JayHenry (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't evaluate you, I evaluated your comment. Comments are weighed, not the editor. And I was interested in finding out what you meant, you chose not to engage. I'll direct you once again to my talk page, or else lets be done with it, eh? Synergy 09:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You weren't interested in finding out what I meant. In fact, I asked you directly if you had a question about what I meant, and you responded "no questions from me, just straight forward rejection". Then you told me that if I wanted your reasoning to go to your talk page but implied that it would not be respectful. This is the first time you've indicated an interest in finding out what I meant. I've already offered one clarification, and I'm not sure what you find so outrageous about my neutral that not only must it be discussed on talk, it's even necessary to condescend toward anyone who "condones it" ("you puzzle me Giggy"). You can explain your reasoning here, as it's pertinent to this RFA. I've further clarified my reasoning below and questions are welcome. --JayHenry (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, no that came out wrong. What I meant was, I was interested in following this up on my talk page, not that I was interested in your reasoning (because frankly, I didn't want to do this here and for some reason you do, and that bothers me a little). So apologies for the misunderstanding there. You already have my opinion, so theres really nothing left for me to say besides take any further issues to my talk page. Thank you. Synergy 23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It bothers you that "for some reason" I want to discuss and clarify my opinions about this RFA at this RFA? I was sincerely trying to patiently explain myself in what I believed to be the appropriate forum. No matter. I do thank Giggy, Hbdragon, Peter, Rudget and most of all Gazimoff, for discussing respectfully or at least listening; despite disagreeing. That's how I thought community discussions were supposed to work. Good luck as an admin, Gazimoff--if you're ever in need of a peer reviewer I'd be happy to put this behind us in that fashion. --JayHenry (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking carefully how to respond to this, as JayHenry does raise a valid question. I do work in MMO and videogame related content areas, partly because I saw an opportunity to clean up and source articles that were in fairly bad shape. They are also an entertainment form that I've consumed since childhood - I started playing computer games when I was 3 years old, and I'll be celebrating my 29th birthday later this month. I guess as a result, I've naturally tended to move to that area. I've often contemplated branching out into areas related to my proffesional career, such as mobile telecommunications, systems design and architectures, databases and data structures and so on. To be fair though, I enjoy working on Wikipedia and get a large amount of satisfaction from collaborating with others, so I'm heasitant about making it feel too similar to what I do for a living. As a result, I tended to branch out into other areas that I felt I could help people, such as AfD debates, responding to ((helpme)) tags on talkpages, occasionally manning the helpdesk, performing the occasional GA review or peer review, and performing newpage patrol. It was this desire to be helpful that spawned WP:RREV, using previous experience as a process analyst to benefit the project. I should probably make it clear that I do this not to to accrue experience points or level up, but to ensure new ediors get as positive a start to the project as I did, or that existing editors get constructive criticism and advice on how to make their content even better. I do take your point about a narrow mainspace field, and will probably look at branching out into other areas such as Wikiproject Novels in the future. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 10:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response Gazimoff. I don't mean to suggest that there's anything wrong with video game work. In fact, they're important articles because one can turn to dozens of places for an article about an author or an animal, but when it comes to video games, Wikipedia is very much more an authority. It's important work that draws in hundreds of thousands of readers--thank you for it. And the level of support here is a testament to how nice a collaborator you are. So why neutral? Because I've seen a lot of really kind and genuine people, nice collaborators, with about 1000 good and valuable mainspace edits over the course of 4-6 months (albeit to a narrow field of interests), come through RFA. The RFA regulars usually SNOW them out of here in a couple of minutes. See Gazimoff, it's not that you're a bad guy--not at all, you're one of the good guys. The thing is this: a lot of those guys that got SNOWed were good guys too. They just hadn't participated at WT:RFA. That should be a huge cause for concern for all of us--not that you're passing, but that so many others just like you have failed. --JayHenry (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I'm in support, that's not an unreasonable view in my opinion. Rudget 14:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (←) Everybody at RfA is entitled to their own opinion. Opinions can be based on context surrounding RfA (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro for one example) as well as the candidate's abilities. Although I'm in the support section, there is nothing in JayHenry's comment that was unreasonable. It was well thought-out and valid, and there are precedents for this view. An expression of views is exactly what RfA is, and it would be more appropriate to allow JayHenry to express his view as an editor. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Doesn't seem quite experienced enough. I also agree with JayHenry's comments. Epbr123 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 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.
Category