Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight 3

Editing stats for Useight at 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC):

General user info Username: Useight User groups: sysop First edit: Dec 02, 2006 01:56:56 Total edits (including deleted): 63,639 Deleted edits: 2,553 Live edits: 61,086

Namespace totals Article	43661	71.47% Talk	1986	3.25% User	3128	5.12% User talk	6340	10.38% Wikipedia	4667	7.64% Wikipedia talk	855	1.40% File	7	0.01% File talk	2	0.00% Template	378	0.62% Template talk	3	0.00% Help	1	0.00% Category	47	0.08% Category talk	1	0.00% Portal	9	0.01% Portal talk	1	0.00%

Month counts 2006/12	1	2007/01	0	2007/02	0	2007/03	51	2007/04	135	2007/05	236	2007/06	934	2007/07	945	2007/08	516	2007/09	672	2007/10	489	2007/11	473	2007/12	526	2008/01	497	2008/02	952	2008/03	1606	2008/04	2450	2008/05	3385	2008/06	2216	2008/07	2924	2008/08	2423	2008/09	2443	2008/10	2007	2008/11	1939	2008/12	1074	2009/01	4501	2009/02	5613	2009/03	3701	2009/04	3325	2009/05	3360	2009/06	1900	2009/07	1105	2009/08	1013	2009/09	1231	2009/10	1168	2009/11	1214	2009/12	2466	2010/01	1595

Logs Users blocked: 338 Pages deleted: 1685 Pages patrolled: 1700 Pages protected: 34 Pages restored: 18 User rights modified: 6 Users unblocked: 8 Pages unprotected: 3 Files uploaded: 3

Moved from main page

 * Oppose You're too obsessed with Wikipedia to allow rational thought. Garibaldi Baconfat   23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This rationale for opposing is offensive and so blatantly lacks merit that I am considering striking it as trollish in nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good for you Bradley. Though what you find offensive seems very subjective as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Garibaldi Baconfat   23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can be so obsessed with improving an online encyclopedia that you can no longer help it? mynameinc (t|c) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, such users have a distinct lack of perspective where Wikipedia is concerned, just ask Bradley. Garibaldi Baconfat   00:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're acting as if you have a personal problem with Useight and Newyorkbrad. I highly doubt that, if it is possible, Useight and Newyorkbrad are so obsessed with Wikipedia that they are no longer beneficial to it.  mynameinc (t|c) 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt your ability to tell who is or isn't of benefit to Wikipedia. Garibaldi Baconfat   00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So is this getting struck per the several guidelines it violates or what? Şłџğģő  01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done because this editor is now indef'd. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally. Carry on.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just adding, there's this. Şłџğģő  01:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I said he was indef'd above. :)  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But people might wonder why such an extreme step was taken.
 * Right?
 * Okay. Nobody was wondering that. It's just full disclosure. Şłџğģő  03:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)