Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. No new arguments since the last MfD two months ago which had a clear outcome of keep. The information contained in the subpage is clearly not personal and doesn't violate any policies.BJ Talk 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Edit count
Privacy concern: I believe that any editors on the list could request Betacommand to remove his/her name. Even if the information is easily accessible in a public space, this list is redundant since List of Wikipedians by number of edits] has its own Wikispace. See User talk:Betacommand/20081201. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Please see the previous MfD these service two widely separate issues, and this is no where near a privacy issue. if one wanted they could use the API and do the exact same thing or countless other edit counting tools. βcommand 04:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Per the last MFD consensus. This nomination reason is flawed; there is no privacy concern whatsoever.  All information on the page is public, and can be gathered by anybody.  No problems here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you prove to have pushed your opinion to me at User talk:Betacommand/20081201. Besides, I think it has a problem that you don't see. The list is not only violating privacy, but also serves nothing useful function. (well, only usefull for RFA candidate?)--Caspian blue (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Public information, no new arguments since last time this was at MfD. VegaDark (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the redundant list should exist in the personal space.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * its not redundant there are major differences in what is presented. βcommand 04:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that the info should be in public? Because it is a public information? You just give me the circulating answers or may give such absurd vandalism warning to anyone who does remove his/her name on the list.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Userspace page that violates no policy whatsoever. There's no reason to censor publicly available information. List is not redundant; other version has not been updated in months. Strong consensus for keep was previously established in first MfD. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 04:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me that for what function the list serves in Wikipedia?--Caspian blue (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * can you tell me what User:Caspian blue/Wikidrama does for wikipedia? the page that I maintain contains a list of all users with at least 5000 edits, which is very useful for statistics. βcommand 04:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you can delete the forgotten subpage regarding the corrupt admin if you were an admin. So can you tell me how useful the statistices to Wikipedia?--Caspian blue (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Lets keep irrelevant discussion elsewhere, please. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a retaliation. My comment is toward Beta, not you. If some uninvolved admin delete it, I really would not mind. However, you delete it on behalf of Beta as a simple retaliation. You have been pushing your agenda to me at the talk page with no good reason. Beta is checking on my user page to attack me for keeping the page. These kind of behaviros of the current and previous admins are very disappointing. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  "Qualified" Keep - That is, I'd like to know what Betacommand is trying to prove by posting this info. Obviously, bots are going to have way many more edits than editors. But it's public info, so there is no "privacy" issue whatsoever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He's been maintaining this list for nearly a year. No harm, no foul, no problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is, sub-pages like this are subject to deletion if they're being used to disrupt or to bait somebody. If Caspian were being singled out, that would be one thing. But he's just one name on a long list. No harmful intent that I can see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any problems with this page. Captain   panda  04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This was determined barely over two months ago to be a perfectly acceptable use of user space, and Beta's page is not a duplicate of the list in project space. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count was clear. Speedy keep. - auburn pilot   talk  04:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No compelling reason given for deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Badagnani (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.