Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Erm, can the "requesters" vote too? --Illythr (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know Wikipedia rules are strange and hard to find, but I don't see why not, it's easier to count how many people support the person, right? -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit count for Biruitorul
User:Biruitorul
run at Thu Mar 6 23:02:13 2008 GMT
Category: 28
Image talk: 3
Image: 190
Mainspace 26193
Portal talk: 5
Portal: 147
Talk: 666
Template talk: 52
Template: 1173
User talk: 1339
User: 342
Wikipedia talk: 131
Wikipedia: 789
avg edits per page 1.55
earliest 16:24, 8 May 2006
number of unique pages 20094
total 31058
2006/5 1240
2006/6 1961
2006/7 834
2006/8 2143
2006/9 2284
2006/10 2806
2006/11 2476
2006/12 2099
2007/1 2610
2007/2 1939
2007/3 968
2007/4 1333
2007/5 936
2007/6 844
2007/7 992
2007/8 1139
2007/9 927
2007/10 1201
2007/11 799
2007/12 836
2008/1 612
2008/2 34
2008/3 45
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
55 List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants
31 Nikita Khrushchev
27 Soviet occupation of Romania
26 Communist Romania
26 Governor of Massachusetts
23 Vlad III the Impaler
22 Hungarian Revolution of 1956
21 West Roxbury, Massachusetts
20 John Singleton Copley
19 Romania
19 Madrid
18 Deval Patrick
18 Semantron
17 Ferenc Gyurcs�ny
17 Polish football in interwar period
Talk:
69 Soviet occupation of Romania
41 F�nt�na Alb? massacre
21 Hungarian Revolution of 1956
17 Odorheiu Secuiesc
13 Ceau?ima
10 Italians of Romanian descent
9 Romanians
9 Romanian general election, 1946
9 Soviet occupations/Archive 1
8 Hungarian Revolution of 1848
8 National Liberal Party (Romania)
7 Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
6 History of the Cyclades
6 History of Communist Bulgaria
6 Era of Silence
Category:
3 Constitutions of Romania
Image:
5 Brassovia.jpg
3 Belcherfast.gif
3 Lee McClung.jpg
2 Octavian Utalea.jpg
2 Lemuelshaw.jpg
2 Cornelchiriac.jpg
2 ICFrimu1.jpg
2 CornelChiriacREL.jpg
2 Monumentul Unirii din Ia?i1.jpg
2 Karlhabsburg.jpg
2 Kuperjanov.jpg
2 Vedere Carani.jpg
2 AlexStercaSulutiu.jpg
2 NewNorthSketch.jpg
2 ICFrimu.jpg
Image talk:
2 TFinneran.jpg
Portal:
138 Romania/New article announcements
2 Russia/New article announcements
2 Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/to do
Portal talk:
5 Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board
Template:
16 GreekPMs
15 GermanChancellors
13 RomanianPrimeMinisters
12 Romanian political parties
11 MAGovernors
8 Heads of State of Romania
8 FrenchPresidents
8 FrenchPrimeMinisters
8 LiberianPresidents
7 AzerbaijanPresidents
7 SpanishPrimeMinisters
7 GeorgiaPresidents
6 Presidents of Brazil
6 FinnishPresidents
6 Romanian general election, 1937
Template talk:
38 Did you know
6 Latvia Presidents
2 Estonia Presidents
User:
181 Biruitorul/Articles
50 Biruitorul/Sandbox
47 Biruitorul
28 Biruitorul/Pending
10 Dahn/Templates
4 Dahn/Sandbox
4 Dc76/project3
3 CIPRIANLUPU
3 Anonymous Dissident/List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs
User talk:
270 Dahn
138 K. Lastochka
57 Anonimu
46 Biruitorul
43 Jmabel
22 Bogdangiusca/Archive11
20 Khoikhoi
19 Dc76
17 Mentatus
16 KazakhPol
16 Piotrus
15 NikoSilver
12 Darwinek
12 TodorBozhinov
12 Ghirlandajo
Wikipedia:
134 Romanian Wikipedians' notice board
25 Requests for comment/Anonimu
20 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
14 Articles for deletion/Steve Gilliard
13 Articles for deletion/Katherine Prudhomme
12 Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board
11 Requests for adminship/Biruitorul
10 Articles for deletion/Rise of nationalism in Europe
9 Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag
9 Requests for arbitration
9 Articles for deletion/Death of Dean Shillingsworth
8 Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Foreign Ministers
8 List of non-admins with high edit counts
7 Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 31
7 Articles for deletion/Colorado Springs church shooting
Wikipedia talk:
79 Romanian Wikipedians' notice board
18 Requests for comment/Piotrus
7 Requests for comment/Anonimu
4 Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
4 Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Proposed decision
4 WikiProject Royalty
3 UK Wikipedians' notice board
3 Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Evidence
2 WikiProject Biography
2 German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Edit summaries
I admit I haven't looked into this much, but it strikes me as terribly odd that adminship is supposedly denied to people who will not leave edit summaries. The one reason for this is supposedly the one provided by one editor on the request page: "sure you know why you made the edit, but what about the editor tracking down vandalism?" Let me deconstruct that, if I may. Is it supposed to mean that these users will only/mainly check pages edits were no edit summary was provided? Then all vandals have to learn is to write misleading summaries. Is it to mean that anyone actually expects a person who vandalizes to write: "replaced picture of Copernicus with goatse of my own design" or "rephrased part about the Renaissance to imply that Dante had sexual encounters with donkeys"? Dahn (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Edit summaries aren't only for vandalfighters. They're for people checking watchlists, so they have some idea of what you were doing. Imagine, for instance, that a user removes a section from an article with no explanation. Chances are you revert. However, that text could have been a copyvio, and if they had said so in their ES (with a link to the source, obviously) then you'd know not to revert it.
- This is just one example of where they're useful. I'm sorry if you were confused or anything by the opposition in the RfA, and hopefully it's a bit more clear now. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but "minor" from a good contributor means "minor". I'm not really concerned to see them say what the nature of the minor edit was. I can pretty much presume that to any good editor, marking an edit as "minor" is an assertion that they are sure it is not controversial. - Jmabel | Talk 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- What if you haven't interacted with this editor and don't know if they're a good one or not? I'm not trying to suggest anything, just pointing out the hypothetical, often used in defense of always using edit summaries. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I will say that, so far, I have seen no edit to remove copyvioed etc content that would not have been accompanied by an edit summary, whereas I have seen articles brutally vandalized for months on end, where the initial vandalism was, of course, itself accompanied by no edit summary. My main point was not about the merits of using edit summaries, but about how using or not using them is virtually the same ting in the long run. On one hand, editors who are on the lookout for vandalism will not and should not be prevented from looking into articles because there are summaries attached to the recent edits. Just as well, no editor will forget to leave edit summaries when they are in the interest of his edit. People who check watchlists (including myself), would probably find it most productive if they checked edit by edit. If not, then it means they trust the edit summary, which is exactly the same as them trusting the editor being a good editor, and which you said was not to be expected. Dahn (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I understand and respect your opinion, and it ultimately comes down to an "each to his own" sort of thing. I don't oppose per edit summaries. I use them for all mainspace edits, but often forget/don't care for edits in other namespaces. Some people always use them, some never do, and some get really pissed off by the latter. There really isn't much you can do about it, other than raise the issue on the RfA main page (pointing your analysis here, if you wish) so that the closing 'crat takes this issue, and your stance on it, into consideration. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I've changed my preferences so I'm reminded to use edit summaries in case I don't. Biruitorul (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand and respect your opinion, and it ultimately comes down to an "each to his own" sort of thing. I don't oppose per edit summaries. I use them for all mainspace edits, but often forget/don't care for edits in other namespaces. Some people always use them, some never do, and some get really pissed off by the latter. There really isn't much you can do about it, other than raise the issue on the RfA main page (pointing your analysis here, if you wish) so that the closing 'crat takes this issue, and your stance on it, into consideration. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I will say that, so far, I have seen no edit to remove copyvioed etc content that would not have been accompanied by an edit summary, whereas I have seen articles brutally vandalized for months on end, where the initial vandalism was, of course, itself accompanied by no edit summary. My main point was not about the merits of using edit summaries, but about how using or not using them is virtually the same ting in the long run. On one hand, editors who are on the lookout for vandalism will not and should not be prevented from looking into articles because there are summaries attached to the recent edits. Just as well, no editor will forget to leave edit summaries when they are in the interest of his edit. People who check watchlists (including myself), would probably find it most productive if they checked edit by edit. If not, then it means they trust the edit summary, which is exactly the same as them trusting the editor being a good editor, and which you said was not to be expected. Dahn (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- What if you haven't interacted with this editor and don't know if they're a good one or not? I'm not trying to suggest anything, just pointing out the hypothetical, often used in defense of always using edit summaries. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but "minor" from a good contributor means "minor". I'm not really concerned to see them say what the nature of the minor edit was. I can pretty much presume that to any good editor, marking an edit as "minor" is an assertion that they are sure it is not controversial. - Jmabel | Talk 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't always true, of course, but in general, I've found that non-IP editors with blue links (ie, who have a user page) are highly unlikely to be vandals. Not impossible, but improbable. And if marked minor by such an editor, the edit is likely to be minor. Of course, a slightly smarter vandal could easily ape this practice in order to make it seem like he's making legitimate edits, so really, the only way to know for sure is to check every edit. Biruitorul (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with most of the above by Biruitorul (talk), dihydrogen monoxide(H20) and Jmabel | Talk - I changed my preferences to remind me to always remember edit summaries also - yesterday - after 12k + edits...I write edit summaries but sometimes I forget also. Modernist (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] What the last part of this episode reminds me of
In 2006, on Meta, a alliance was forged between Romanian editors and people involved with Siberian wiki to vote jointly to keep Siberain wiki and to delete the Moldavian one.
Since the Siberian wiki is now closed, it is rather difficult to give the exact difs, but the main sysop of Siberian Wiki never denied that there was such an agreement:
You can have a look at [1] where you can find:
"There is a shady deal between the supporters of closure on Moldovan Wikipedia and the opposers of closure of Siberian Wikipedia. Here is the proof: Парни, Бонопарт повел войска! Надо поддержать румын! --YaroslavZolotaryov 19:24, 17 Грудень 2006 (UTC). Ttranslation: Lads, Bonopart is leading the troops! We ought to support the Romanians!. Feathered Serpent 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC), ru:User:Пернатый Змей, en:User:Feathered Serpent"
Since I do not want to be accused of anti-Romanianism, I must add that a few Romanian meta-editors voted with their head, against Bony and against both wikis. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
