Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2

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 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 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)

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)

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 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)


 * I'm sorry, are you saying anything specific about Biruitorul? —PētersV (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)