Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Irishguy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irishguy's edit stats using wannabe Kate tool as of 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC):
Category talk: 2 Category: 8 Help: 1 Image talk: 1 Image: 8 Mainspace 8471 Portal talk: 1 Portal: 2 Talk: 305 Template: 7 User talk: 4051 User: 245 Wikipedia talk: 61 Wikipedia: 1127 avg edits per article 1.59 earliest 20:08, 4 July 2005 number of unique articles 8974 total 14290 2005/7 22 2005/8 1 2005/9 0 2005/10 11 2005/11 4 2005/12 0 2006/1 0 2006/2 0 2006/3 1 2006/4 177 2006/5 1431 2006/6 1916 2006/7 1562 2006/8 659 2006/9 1514 2006/10 1346 2006/11 1818 2006/12 1217 2007/1 1517 2007/2 1094
[edit] Edit summaries
(note: moved from RfA page)
- Less than an hour after listing this RfA, made this edit to list an AfD without including the recommended edit summary. These summaries are useful to people that have the page watchlisted, as well as people looking at the history. Not something I'm going to base my decision on here, but something I think an admin ought to be sensitive to. —Doug Bell talk 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- You raise a good point. My apologies for that. I try to remember to use edit summaries and I definitely should have in that instance. IrishGuy talk 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I deal with the AfD pages as much as anyone and I have never encountered a situation where such an edit summary would have been at all useful. But maybe that's just me. --W.marsh 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- First, the AfD page includes a request to add the edit summary, so your opinion is against what all editors are asked to do. Second, I gave my reasons above for why they are useful, so I don't understand why you would bother to add your 2¢ after the nominee has already responded. —Doug Bell talk 00:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because as an RFA nominee, he has to be nice to people who make silly requests of him. I thought I'd point out that it was a silly thing to complain about in an RfA, or anywhere. --W.marsh 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not silly. The process for closing an AfD has similar requests on leaving summary comments and comments in the deletion log when an article is deleted. When blocking a user, there are instructions for the content of the block log comment. Recommendations for following these processes are there for a reason, whether or not you choose to ignore them because they aren't your personal preference. Your decision to chime in here is I suppose another example of your disregard for following processes that are intended to make this place run a little smoother. Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter. —Doug Bell talk 00:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, this is about not following rules for the sake of following rules... I follow rules that make sense to me, which if you'd bothered to check includes all of the ones you've cited as examples of ones I "disregard", claiming that I disregard them is simply wrong and insulting. This particular edit summary rule has no role in making AfD run smoother, it's just a rule people follow because it's a rule. --W.marsh 01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know which recommendations for procedure you follow or not. How would I know your personal views on which are useful or not? Why leave edit summaries at all on articles? Maybe you don't find them useful either. Like I said, I gave my reason for why this is useful. I got to this RfA because in my watchlist I first saw Majorly's addition to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship which didn't include an edit summary saying who was being added, so I had to look at the diff to see. A few items higher in my watchlist I found Irishguy's addition to AfD, which I had to diff to see what was added. Checking these diffs took time...time multiplied by however many people were inconvenienced by the lack of a useful edit summary, which adds up to more than the amount of time it would take to just add the damn summary in the first place. So I come to the RfA to make a polite, reasonable suggestion, and explicitly state that this is not a reason to base the decision on this RfA. For some reason, who knows, you feel the need to chime in on it with your opinion regarding a) your lack of concern for following recommended procedures (not rules, BTW), and b) your point of view that what matters is not consensually arrived at recommendations on procedure, but rather W.marsh's personal opinion of what could possibly be useful to others. I feel so enlightened to have your perspective...thanks. —Doug Bell talk 01:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'm glad I was enable to enlighten you. --W.marsh 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Some consistency, perhaps? How can you complain about him not following process with a straight face? Seriously, this is really rather silly on a number of levels. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for making me laugh! What a card. —Doug Bell talk 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm simply saying that maybe you should be a little more aware of that. I think you owe him an apology. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Aware of what? If you have a problem with how that MfD was closed, take it to DRV. That ought to be good for some more laughs, Jeff. And I owe who an apology for what? Sigh. —Doug Bell talk 14:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I will. But if you're going to bitch at someone for not using edit summaries because of the process, yet can't be bothered with it on your own, what does that say, exactly? I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with you further, just think before you act, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- First, the above discussion is about "procedure" not "process". Second, you need to find a contra example before you start lecturing me. And please do take it to DRV. I could use the entertainment—you'll get an avalance of WP:POINT comments and who knows what else. Good day. —Doug Bell talk 14:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Or how about you shut the fuck up and quit making yourself look like an idiot? Jeff has a point and you're being moronic. And where the hell did the DRV comment come from? --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- It came from a previous discussion between Jeff and I that Jeff decided to reopen here. If you don't know what the issue is, why chime in just to illustrate your ignorance? You could ask what it's about first, then once informed give me your sagely advice. —Doug Bell talk 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Or how about you shut the fuck up and quit making yourself look like an idiot? Jeff has a point and you're being moronic. And where the hell did the DRV comment come from? --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- First, the above discussion is about "procedure" not "process". Second, you need to find a contra example before you start lecturing me. And please do take it to DRV. I could use the entertainment—you'll get an avalance of WP:POINT comments and who knows what else. Good day. —Doug Bell talk 14:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I will. But if you're going to bitch at someone for not using edit summaries because of the process, yet can't be bothered with it on your own, what does that say, exactly? I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with you further, just think before you act, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Aware of what? If you have a problem with how that MfD was closed, take it to DRV. That ought to be good for some more laughs, Jeff. And I owe who an apology for what? Sigh. —Doug Bell talk 14:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm simply saying that maybe you should be a little more aware of that. I think you owe him an apology. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for making me laugh! What a card. —Doug Bell talk 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not silly. The process for closing an AfD has similar requests on leaving summary comments and comments in the deletion log when an article is deleted. When blocking a user, there are instructions for the content of the block log comment. Recommendations for following these processes are there for a reason, whether or not you choose to ignore them because they aren't your personal preference. Your decision to chime in here is I suppose another example of your disregard for following processes that are intended to make this place run a little smoother. Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter. —Doug Bell talk 00:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because as an RFA nominee, he has to be nice to people who make silly requests of him. I thought I'd point out that it was a silly thing to complain about in an RfA, or anywhere. --W.marsh 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- First, the AfD page includes a request to add the edit summary, so your opinion is against what all editors are asked to do. Second, I gave my reasons above for why they are useful, so I don't understand why you would bother to add your 2¢ after the nominee has already responded. —Doug Bell talk 00:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
