Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (3rd 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 No consensus Both sides of the debate has both valid and invalid agruements, so no consensus can be formed. The main issue why this page was in mfd in the first place was over a major edit war, which is silly. If a user wants to op out of this list, they are free to do so and replace themselves with a placeholder, unless consensus is strongly against it, which doesn't seem to be the case here or the talk page. About Ryoung122 agruements with Babe Ruth, etc, they has nothing to do with this debate as those topics and wikipedia policy are different things, so it's mostly moot. Jbeach sup 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of edits
Important note I originally attempted to nominate the subpage List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest where there has been edit warring, ownership, and editors ignoring and reverting other editors' requests for privacy despite the specific instructions. However, that is merely transcluded in List of Wikipedians by number of edits which has already been nominated once before, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. I still believe the page should be marked historical and discontinued unless a way can be found to respect editors' requests to be left off with no questions, no complaining, no reverting, and no exceptions. Thatcher131 01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits for more discussions. `'Míkka 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is kind of neat for people who are into edit countitis. However, the generators of the list appear to have ownership issues and are not willing or capable of respecting editors' desires for privacy. At the very top of the page it says '''Editors are free to remove their name from this list, and to add their names to this one. When they do, do not revert.''' This is apparently a mechanism to allow the generators of the list to manually remove editors names and replace with "placeholder" because the list can only be auto-generated with all the names intact. And yet replacing your name with "placeholder" still leaves an edit trail. The list maintainers do not respect editors' wishes to be left off; vis. repeated reversions in the page history culminating in ^demon violating 3RR just to try and get a little privacy. If the list can not respect editors who do not want to be on it, either because the auto-generating feature makes it too difficult, of because the maintainers have ownership issues, it should end. The page should be marked historical, the current list deleted, and no future lists generated. Thatcher131 01:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (ec)This is silly, it is simple a statistical listing. The fact that there was an edit war is no good reason to delete the page. Privacy? Since when do people own their contributions to the point where they cannot be counted? No where in the privacy agreement does it say that your edits won't be counted. There is no justification to delete this. 1 != 2  01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should go to the page and explain at the top in bold "You don;t own your edits and have no right to ask to be left off the list" then replace all the placeholders with real accounts and delete the anonymous request page. If that's the will of the community then so be it.  But don't offer an opt-out with a no reversions clause and then edit war when someone actually wants to opt out.  that's at least 3 or 4 editors who don't understand how their own page is supposed to work. Thatcher131 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know who added that "opt-out" nonsense, but I agree it should not be there. We don't let people control how we use their contributions. 1 != 2  16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This page really serves no purpose other than being a timesink and promoting editcountitis -- we have quite enough of that. The fact that peoples' privacy wishes are being blatantly ignored in the creation and maintenance of this list is disheartening as well. Some people don't want their edit counts publicly announced, and when it says at the top of a page that it is fine if they don't and we go ahead and revert them anyway, we have a serious problem on our hands. Who really cares who has the most edits, anyway? Why don't we focus on something more important instead?  Cowman109 Talk 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Delete for the reasons I've said before. This list exists for the sole purpose of thinking that an edit count matters, when it in fact does not. While Thatcher pretty much hit the nail on the head, I am not doing it for privacy...I am doing it because I feel my edit count does not matter. Other editors seem to think it does, and are forcing me (and others!) onto that listing. ^demon[omg plz] 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, with placeholders. It's an interesting and useful resource; it'd be a shame to delete it because of an inane edit war. Agreement needs to be reached on how to maintain users' privacy, but I agree with Until(1 == 2) above; we do not own our edits here, or our edit count. Utility (though limited) outweighs the valid concerns raised in the nomination, at least for me. --John 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What privacy? I don't see the privacy issue here, your edit count has never ever been private. 1 != 2  01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)There are no privacy issues. It's simply a matter that we do not wish to be judged in an ranking-like fashion against other editors based solely off of the number of times we've clicked "Edit." ^demon[omg plz] 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:Cowman109. SmileToday☺(talk to me, My edits) 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep This list performs a useful purpose that provides a summary of edits, information that is available to any editor for any other editor. I am free to review the edit history of any other editor, and can do so even if that editor does not appear on this list or has asked to be removed. For those who choose to be removed, the mechanism exists to do so. I fail to see how anyone can expect privacy within a process in which each and every edit is stored, logged and attributable to an editor. Alansohn 01:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then remove the privacy option altogether. Posting a privacy option and then ignoring it is the worst of both worlds.  And why exactly is it a good thing to encourage edit counting as a contest.  I can look at anyone's edits, true, but this list uniquely makes it a contest. Thatcher131 02:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wha-- The privacy option is not ignored. Regardless of whether or not it is a good thing to encourage edit counting, this page does not do that; it explicitly states all the usual "not all edits are equal/edit countitis is bad for you and the community/this is not a pissing match" stuff. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why are there so many reversions in the page history, and why was it necessary for ^demon to break 3RR to try and get his name off? Thatcher131 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because people didn't read the instructions, and they edit warred. I was nothing more than a content dispute. 1 != 2  02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Now, before I say anything, does edit count matter? In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't. The deletors are actually right that edit counts are superficial, petty, and the like. However, that is absolutely no reason to delete it. You see, this is simply a list of people who have made a lot of edits, and it just a way for people to compare edits. If someone think edits counts are valuable, then that's their business, I could care less if they think that way. If someone thinks edit counts don't matter, or are even destructive to wikipedia, then I don't care, that's their business. Just because some people are whining about it doesn't mean that others who might want to use it should not be allowed to have access to this resource. I use this list occasionally for fun just to see who I'm similar to in edit count, but I don't use it for anything serious, and I doubt most do; I'm sure many just use the list for fun. It's really harmless, and throwing this up for a deletion does more damage then letting it sit. If you don't like it, then don't view it! Quite simple. Wizardman  02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can already count the number of edits of anyone I want. Having a page devoted to this in WP space doesn't help build an encyclopedia. This could be posted anywhere online for those who are interested in it; no reason to have it here if the creator is unwilling to ignore users who don't want to be listed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as the accuracy of the list is suspect. I just looked through the list and picked out three editors who's names were well known to me and probably others. Two of them have left the project and not edited since March/April, while the third was given an indefinite block in April. Yet I noticed that the edit count of all three had increased since August and in one case it had jumped almost 5,000 edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you prove this? Does this contradict the users' contribs pages? If so, then there is something wrong with: a.) the dump, b.) Rich's method, or c.) both. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I can prove it, but as none of the editors are here anymore I would prefer not to name them unless I have to. But if you check the link above the blocked editor had 32047 7 edits in August but in the current version has 32683 edits. No I didn't check through their contibution list as that would involve at least 65 pages just for that editor. However, the thing is that it indicates the list has errors in it. As to why, I don't know if it's a, b or c, but it means the other counts are suspect as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This only counts edits to pages that are currently available, so if a page is undeleted, the edit count of a retired editor can go up. Dekimasu よ! 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense for the above blocked editor but doesn't really explain an extra 5,000 edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The latest version has deleted edits included, while all other versions do not. That's probably where the extra edits come from. MER-C 09:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: While I personally can't see how this page helps Wikipedia, I will admit that I find it mildly interesting to look over the top editors now and then. However, "editcount-itis" is something that has gotten out of hand lately: Edit count does not matter, content matters. I've seen amazing editors with under 2000 edits, and I've seen really questionable editors with edit counts over 10,000. If this page stays, this whole "placeholder" stuff needs to be stopped, and whatever software is used to remove names needs to be altered to respect those editors who do not want to be part of this list, and simply skip them, not add a "placeholder" with the editor's edit count. This is something that I feel is at the core of the issue, that valid editors are being reverted when trying to get off this list, and that just seems disrespectful, to me. Ariel ♥ Gold 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But why? We have never let users assert control over their contributions before, so why should we let them prevent us from counting their contributions? Every last one of those edits that were counted were GFDL. You can't decide how people judge you. 1 != 2  02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I didn't give an opinion of keep or delete, but I think if an editor wishes to be left off the list, that should be their right. Every editor's edit count is freely available to anyone who wishes to know it, but it is not a policy to have a list that must contain all editors, and this is where I think perhaps we see it differently. This list is not something implemented by Wikipedia as part of the site's software, (unlike forums that show a member's edit number, for instance) so I just personally think editors have a right to request removal. <font color="8B00FF">Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥ <font color="007FFF">Gold 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Wizardman. Some people find this page engaging and interesting, others couldn't care less about edit count. That's fine. Some may consider edit count as really important, others may not. It really doesn't matter; it's simply a personal preference. The page causes no harm to the encyclopedia. However, as for my personal opinion, I strongly concur with Ariel, that quality is much more important to Wikipedia than quantity. Also, as Ariel said, let people choose to be discounted. It's not that big a deal. 1==2, letting people count you is different from putting that up there for all the world to see. Again, it's not that big a deal if someone simply doesn't want to be counted. Regards, Ne<font color= "#03C03C">ra<font color= "#32CD32">n e i   (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Cowman109 above. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; edit-counting is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I oppose any structure which encourages it; especially in a comparative sense.  If you want to keep track of the "top" number of edits people have, fine.  Rank them.  But don't attach usernames so people can feel like it's a contest or a game.  --Haemo 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose any structure which encourages [edit-counting] -- So you'd support removing Special:Contributions? Page histories? Server-side logs of when edits were made? --W.marsh 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they encourage comparisons in a manner the promoters of this list claim is "like [..] the World Series", then they can see the trashbin for me. --Haemo 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're not interested in them... but isn't that more an argument for you not to look at the page, than to deny the information to everybody else? The information is there... if this page were deleted, all that would happen is Wikipedia-hating blowhards would come out of the woodwork to recreate this list on their sites and tease us for having deleted such a trivial thing. --W.marsh 13:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "me looking at it". If Wikipedia hating blowhards want to re-create something which I believe does damage to the project, I can't stop them. I can, however, try to stop what happens here.  The "if we delete it, people who hate us will do it!" argument is extraordinarily uncompelling.  --Haemo 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Let people remove themselves from the list if they want to. As for me, I just like to like to look at the list to see where various editors are in their edit counts. And even though this is a faux pas, I will admit that I care about my edit count. In fact, a good deal of my editing in the past has been inspired in the hope of raising my edit count. This isn't the correct mindset one should have on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not perfect. We have to be willing to realize that some editors will edit for the sake of increasing their edit counts. Many people are saying that the list does not improve the encyclopedia. In fact, it does. As I said before, people will edit in order to increase their edit counts. This improves Wikipedia and gets things done. Though it is not the reason editors are supposed to have for improving Wikipedia, we have to be willing to understand that some people will think this way. Deleting some list won't stop editcountitis. We at Wikipedia should stop pretending that you can change someone's mindset just by getting rid of some page or another. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to point out that when User:^demon got into an edit war to get his name removed from the list, he only brought more attention to the fact that he was on the list. If User:^demon really didn't want to be noticed, he should have just let it slide and not break 3RR and report himself on ANI. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  02:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's kind of what I was thinking... ^demon did a nice job of increasing the number of people who knew his edit count from 1 to... way more than 1. --W.marsh 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care if people know what my edit count is, I just don't want to be ranked against others simply based on that count. <b style="color:#c22">^</b><b style="color:#000">demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is not: original research, a violation of anyone's rights or privacy, or anything that anyone else couldn't just generate if he so desired. There is no reason to delete it furthermore: any editor who does not want his name listed does not have his name listed, which is a concession that is hardly necessary. If anyone wants to edit anonymously, he can simply click on "log out" and edit anonymously. It's simple. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also just note that this comment: "Enter a username and see the number of edits. Handy if you're trying to break into this list. Be sure to give the username proper capitalization." is in tremendous bad taste on the main page, and simply promotes the editing-counting contest this page is not-so thinly veiled from being. --Haemo 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wanting to edit a lot is in bad taste? 1 != 2  02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing in order to "break into this list" is treating editing like a contest, and is in tremendous bad taste. --Haemo 02:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We all need to set goals for ourselves. I don't see the bad taste, tremendous or otherwise. 1 != 2  02:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Setting goals should be based on quality, not quantity. If your "goal" on Wikipedia is to get 10,000 edits, then so be it; you don't need this list.  The only thing this list enourages is ranking editors based on their number of edits &mdash; we don't need people whose "goal" on Wikipedia is beating other people on a list of "most edits".  --Haemo 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, an edit count is only dangerous when it's taken deadly seriously. Treat it like it's not important, and it won't be! Keeping or deleting this page (or treating it like it's some terrible monster) will have no effect on Wikipedians who believe that that one's edit count is an important measure of one's worth as an editor (and who forget that Wikipedia is a volunteer project), nor will it affect those who couldn't care less about edit counts. This page has interesting historical and trivia value, and I see no harm in keeping it. The early archives of the talk page do make an interesting read, by the way. Grace notes T <span title="Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (second nomination)">§ 02:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Wizardman explains it well enough.--C.Logan 02:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The stated reason for the page to be deleted (that someone refuses to remove a name from the page) is a motive for a cluebatting, not for the page's deletion. It's just statistical analysis. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:OWN issues here... if you don't want to be among Wikipedia's most active editors... there's really only one solution. As long as contribs can be viewed, lists like this will exist. I recall someone saying something about information wanting to be free, too... --W.marsh 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not serve the purpose of creating encyclopedia, encourages vanity and, lacking any other more meaningful metrics provides unfair comparison of wikipedians. `'Míkka 03:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I believe a list of the most prominent Wikipedians is just as important as WikiScanner. While each tool serves a different purpose, they are each valuable tools to the extent that we care that some editors edit more than others or that some IPs coincide with major businesses. We [the maintainers of the list, of which I count myself one] have had some trouble with editors wishing to have anonymity; however, I believe the current option of having one's name replaced with a placeholder is an acceptable compromise with those users that don't wish to be known for their (extensive, given the edit cutoff) contributions. However, if they don't want to be known for editing, then they shouldn't edit; and if they don't agree with edit counters, then they shouldn't care. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wizardman and other arguments. Edit wars are not reason to delete a page. --- RockMFR 03:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as disruptive to the project. Not for the edit warring, but as "bait" for further conflict revolving around "edit count", "seniority", and generally trying to build a false hierarchy within the project. I've no reason to suspect that was the intent of this page, but I'm sure it will be the result.  --InkSplotch 03:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's nothing more or less than a collection of data.  As such it has some value for statistical analysis or simply for those who are interested.  We can't control the reasons people may have for "judging" us - whether it be for our place on a page full of numbers, our signature, our user page, what kind of shoes we wear etc.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Modify or Delete: Wizardman makes a claim that if we don't like it, we simply shouldn't look at it. This assumes that the only problem is looking at it by the people who don't want to be on it. Editcountitis is actually a quite serious problem. It is directly damaging to the project and contributes to a broad array of very poor decisions and effects that dramatically and negatively affect the project. A similar page to this that listed admins by edit count was deleted. It would be wise for the keepers on this MfD to read that and understand why. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of administrators by edit count. Secondly, there's been serious fractious editing over this page over the last few months. Is edit warring a reason to delete? No, not in itself. But, when the people who wish to use this list absolutely insist on not respecting the wishes of their fellow editors in being removed from this list, then its presence becomes a very divisive factor for the project. We are not here to write lists of editors by edit count. We are here to work cooperatively to build an encyclopedia. Anything which stands in the way of that goal, including a list that creates so much friction, needs to be removed. We are not here for any other purpose...period. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to find another website to haunt. Despite my own wishes not to be on this list, my name keeps on popping up on it. Some time ago, I suggested that this list be reworked into an opt-in only list. I.e., for those people who are so addicted to editcountitis that this means something can have this list; they can compare themselves all they want against their fellow addictees. No place holders, just themselves. That way, the problems with this list vanish. If the list can not be modified in that way, then it needs to go. There is *no* reason for this list to exist in any respect that it actually contributes to the one and only goal we have here; to write an encyclopedia. --Durin 03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mikkalai's comment on the talk page that Wikipedia is not a pissing contest. Those who are here for personal glory and fame should find themselves a new hobby. You can post your edit count on your user page. This list serves no valid purpose. If you want the edit count of a certain editor get it yourself. EconomicsGuy 03:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has interesting historical value and allows users to know which editors are active and historically active. I do not see this page as harmful to the project in any way as people may remove themselves from it if they do not like being on it.  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 04:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No they can't because the links to past months lists are permalinks to old revisions of the list. Removing your name from the list serves no purpose when it is being linked to like that. At the very least we should remove the links to past versions of the list. EconomicsGuy 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not serve a Wikipedia purpose. Iterator12n  <font color="Blue"> Talk 05:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete with prejudice. This relative ranking serves no useful purpose, since it does not reflect the real (whatver it can be) contribution to the project. For example, take editor #4 (!) . What are his typical contributions? A brief impression is that 90% of hiss recent work looks like this:
 * 01:15, 14 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes‎ (Assessed as Stub class) (top)
 * 01:15, 14 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Wagga Wagga‎ (Assessed as Stub class) (top)
 * 01:15, 14 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Bathurst‎ (Assessed as Stub class) (top)
 * 01:15, 14 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney‎ (Assessed as Stub class) (top)
 * 01:15, 14 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Parramatta‎ (Assessed as Stub class) (top)
 * 01:15, 14 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle‎ (Assessed as Stub class)
 * In one minute he evaluated the quality of 6 articles, i.e, 10 seconds per article!!! It must be a super-duper-wiki-genius, or I seriously doubt the quality of their work, and ranking this work #4 in the whole wide wikipedia world  by whatever criteria is an insult to sanity. Mukadderat 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. He has impressive count over 100,000 edits. Multipling by 10, it takes only 1000,000 seconds. Working 3 hours per day, it will take a little over 90 days to get this score. It is high time to write a book How to Become the . Mukadderat 05:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the list claims to be a count of the number of edits a person has made, nowhere does it claim to be an assessment of the users value. That is something you are inferring. If it was in alphabetical order you would not think that people starting with A are being given a higher value, it is just a sort method. 1 != 2  05:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is #1 wikipedian got the glory and the interview. I have no doubts that widely quiting this fact boosted the "productivity" of quite a few editors. He was picked not because his article was featured ion the main page or quoted by Encuclopeduia Britannica. He was picked because the external world gives shit for yor hard work. The external world sees only scandals and these idiotic numbers. DOn't prenetd that you don't see the difference between alpha listing and some ranking. Pissing contests are rooted deep in human psyschology. If it were listed by alpha and Ny Times] pucked the fisrt in the list, I have no doubt we will have a user:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASmartassestWeikipedian, what wee see in Yellow pages and phone books.  Mukadderat 05:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I thought I was joking, then decided to check the user list... Lo! User:!WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ... User:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA PENIS. Mukadderat 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We already have an alphabetic list of users. It is no coincidence that this one is sorted by edit counts. If the list does not suggest that edit counts matter then why defend the list? EconomicsGuy 05:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who find the list useful for whatever valid reason can use the api like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=contribcounter&titles=User:EconomicsGuy. That even gets you the deleted contributions as well so you don't need to be confused about why an edit count changes when the user is inactive. O course, a query string isn't as sexy as seeing your name on a list which bríngs me back to my original argument against this list. EconomicsGuy 06:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a table of statistics. If you don't want to look at it, then don't. If you don't want to be a part of it, then remove your name. It is being made into something that promotes edit counting by the connotation conceived by the format of an ascending list, nothing more. Wizardman makes good points as well. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - promotes editing, which promotes 'pedia building. 'nuff said. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Nuff said indeed. Nicely said too. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Wizardman and Anonymous Dissiedent. If someone does consider edit counts to be some sort of contest, while the attitude is bad, they won't go very far with unconstructive editing. Therefore even it is correcting a spelling mistake, the more net Good-faith edits they, the more Wikipedia is benefitted in the long term. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 09:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I usually agree with demon but not this time. The fact that people might read that edit counts matter because of this list is their perception. It doesn't mean that this list promotes that thinking. It's a table of stats and that is all. We have a link on Cologne Blue (and I assume other skins as well) that goes to a page of just stats. It's legitimate and I don't see any harm here. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this. An editors worth is not dertermined by edit count, and I believe this sends the wrong message, regardless of the intent.  M er cury    12:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think people read what it says below every edit page on Wikipedia - "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL".  In doing so, people are free to do whatever they like with this information, including statistical analysis of the contributors of that information.  All the data for this page is freely and publicly available.  If you don't like it, tough. Asking for your name to be left out because you don't like the page is like the city of Tokyo asking to be removed from the List of cities by population because it encourages too high a birthrate. If people want to analyse this stuff, let them, and stop being such self-martyring dicks about the whole thing (why is it only a few (quote, unquote) senior users who want to make a fuss about this?).  All this garbage about "privacy" or "my edit count doesn't matter, I am not my edit count" is pathetic. If that's really the point, and you're trying to make the encyclopaedia better, then go and copyedit some articles or dig out some references instead of wasting your time complaining about a harmless and interesting resource page like this one.  Neil   ☎  13:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well said, Neil!  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. "people are free to do whatever they like". Just as well I am free to delete my name from this list: you don't own your contribtion. This is not a wikipedia article. This is a piece of research of a wikipedian, and it is argued, of dubious merit. And this resource is not "harmless". Happy with your smart argument you didn't bother to read the opposite side of the story. `'Míkka 02:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't parse your response fully, but I think you are stating I didn't bother to read the opposing arguments, while simultaneously dismissing mine with "nonsense". That's pretty hypocritical, and not going to convince anyone.  Neil   ☎  17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I was going to say delete, but Neil's logic is convincing. BTW, take notice of User:Betacommand/Edit count. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is so sad that a list that originally served as nothing more than a means to satisfy natural editcounting curiosity is now a battleground revolving around some inane "privacy" accusations.  Folks, lighten up!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep mostly per Neil. Nowhere does this list claim to be an assessment of an editor. It is a legitimate analysis of freely available information, just like previous statistics on blocks, protections, and oddly interesting RfA pass rates. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I personally don't buy the other delete arguments about editcountitis, in fact, I find the list useful in a nice-to-know kind of way.  But it has generated way too much whining, drama, and editwarring.  Everyone would be better off if it wasn't around.  --Kbdank71 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me like we wouldn't want to say that if you whine, create drama and editwar, you will get your way. I'm not addressing this to this specific situation, but rather to the logic of your comment.-- Kubigula (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about people getting their way, I guess we could just keep the status quo, and both sides can continue to whine, editwar, etc. I don't see how that would help the project, though.  Something needs to be done, and regardless of what it is, one side will have gotten their way, and one won't.  We're not going to satisfy both sides.  --Kbdank71 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I'll put my Dr. Spock book away :)-- Kubigula (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - page is interesting, serves a purpose and not in violation of policy. Saying it compares editors is senseless - some of our best are right down the bottom, and many at the top do a lot of minor automatic edits (I don't think any of them would deny this, either). I agree also with Neil's and others' comments - however, that being said, I think there is scope perhaps for an optout list which the list can be run through before its posting, so that the tiny minority of editors who do wish to be removed from the list can have their names filtered out automatically. Orderinchaos 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Though if it's to be used statistically, I don't understand why every username isn't included automatically. If someone wants to tag all usernames which are a bot, use a bot, or some other "quick editing tool" (such as AWB), that would be fine too : ) - jc37 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - with reservations. I'm high on the list for basically only adding banners as well, blast it. However, there is at least potentially a use for this sort of list. Whether individuals want to be included is another matter entirely. Personally, I think it might be a good way to determine which users who aren't admins might qualify for being so, as it isn't often the case that people with high edit counts, even if they are quick as per the above, don't have some basic understanding of the rules. And, for what it's worth, I don't have any intention of seeking adminship anytime soon, so I'm not saying this based on any personal agendas or considerations. John Carter 20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question to all supporters of this page
If the page maintainers adopted the argument that since all contributions are licensed under GFDL, and the point of the page is to be a complete list, therefore no requests to be dropped from the list would honored; would you still want to keep it? Thatcher131 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A person's wish not to be included shouldn't affect whether this page is kept or not. I don't mean this as an attack of any kind, but I find those who wish to be removed are the ones putting too much emphasis on the meaning of an edit count. It's just a number, and if it truly means nothing, why do you care if you're on the list? The two arguments don't seem compatible to me. The short version: yes, I'd still say keep. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  16:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As would I. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Joe 17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me answer your question with a question. What is the big deal about using placeholders instead of names?  Seems like a perfect compromise to me.-- Kubigula (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What if I didn't want my username to be on an alphabetical list of users? Or a list of admins, or people who'd had RFAs? Or a list of people who edited a given article? We don't honor frivolous requests like those, and with good cause. --W.marsh 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, people don't get to control their contributions. 1 != 2  18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see little harm in having one's name on a list so, yes. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Thatcher's question - that's a seperate debate. This is about whether the page ought to be deleted.  Personally, I would not allow any names to be removed. If you don't like GFDL data to be used, you shouldn't have clicked the "edit" button.  Neil   ☎  21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Who cares? We've established that editcount is not the most important determinant of an editor's value to Wikipedia. No one disputes this. Whether this list is deleted or not will make absolutely no difference to Wikipedia either way. Nor will it make any difference whether people are entitled to remove their name or not (if editcount is so unimportant, why do they even care whether they're listed?) This MfD is an immense collective achievement in navel-gazing. To both sides: get back to writing the encyclopedia, or even *gasp* go out and do something else. WaltonOne 18:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: The comment "who cares" isn't directed at anyone's comments in particular, but at the entire discussion.) WaltonOne 18:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see nothing wrong (nor good, for that matter) with this page, but Neil convinced me to !vote "keep". If you don't like this page, don't read it. It isn't affecting anything/anyone, so you'll never notice it's there (until someone decides to MFD it...). · <font face="Times New Roman">AndonicO Talk 19:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Waltonone: I don't Why bother nominating it or deleting it? Some people are into this sort of thing, some aren't-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the whole, keep seems like the more reasoned option. Neil's argument is convincing. None of the arguments in favour of deletion left me nodding my head in agreement, although a couple did leave me scratching it in bafflement. Privacy? Harmful? And what message there could be in a paging of dull statistics escapes me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's part of Wikipedia tradition, & various version have existed since forever -- or at least 2004, back when I was in the top 100. Now anyone with a broadband connection, something like AWB & enough spare time can push to the top. IMHO, most people who consult it aren't afflicted with editcountitis. -- llywrch 22:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't see any overwhelming - or even particularly sensible - reasons given for this not to be kept. It's not harming anyone's privacy any more than page edit histories do - probably far less - and I don't see anyone clamouring to remove them. It has a longstanding history within Wikipedia and has never, that I'm aware of, done any editors any harm. If anything, it may have done Wikipedia a lot of good over the years - it's probably been a spur to some editors to do more editing. I recall when I first found the list, the idea of getting my name on it was a major spur to contributing to articles. Anything that acts as an incentive to new editors to work on articles can't be all bad! Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just keep it. No real reason to delete. Besides, it acts as recognition to those editors who spent hours and hours working for Wikipedia. Edit count does not equal good editor, but if you have made 350,000 spell fixes, I think you deserve some recognition and honor. It's the thing that makes Wikipedia "Not suck". If you catch my drift.. -- F  ailure.exe  01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I realize some editors are so up in arms about the Sin of Editcountitis that they XfD anything vaguely related to the concept (and usually lose). There is not policy-cognizant rationale for deleting this so just keep it and move on. I think we all have way better things to think about than things like this. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, and Grutness. Tim Q. Wells 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot understand the rationale to delete. There are people who value a high edit count a lot, and there are people who don't care at all. People from group A would be rather keen to keep it and people from group B couldn't care less if it is kept, deleted or printed out and used as christmas-tree decoration. Charon<font color="Black">X /talk 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum Wikipedia is not "private". Whatever you edit will show in your user contributions, and all your contributions - good and bad - will forever* be viewable in the page's history. Compared to that listing how many times you edited is not a big issue - heck, even a monkey with a bit of time at his hand could just "show next 50xx edits" through your contributions, count the pages and deduct how many contributions you made. In short, the only harm I could see coming out of this page is that someone actually throughly reads it and gets bored to actual exitus. (* forever does not include Oversight, alien invasion of all Wikimedia facilities and the heat-death of the universe) Charon<font color="Black">X /talk 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per SMcCandlish -- couldn't have put it better myself. JPG-GR 04:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has been a part of the community for years and doesn't to keep it up.  It analyzes freely available information and we all know how much salt to take with these lists.  Anyway, I can't really add anything other than what's already been stated here.  --Aranae 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting page that proves that edit counts are basically meaningless. No real reason to delete given either. Kusma (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, A most interesting page. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 08:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per SMcCandish - move along, better things to do. The Rambling Man 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * COMMENT:

In regards to THIS edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AList_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits%2Flatest&diff=165596874&oldid=165595979

We find the user stating that use of placeholders is OK and he just doesn't want his name on the list. But checking the 'edit history' shows he deleted about ten names, not just his own, and did not use placeholders, and further threatened to 'block' any editor that undid that.

Now, I am going to say this: this is a 'poison pill' situation, and it simply is quite unfair to attach a lot of other edits. I could agree, in theory, to all the demands that this user made...using placeholders and not putting his name back. However, with the way he edited it, the actions and words don't remotely match.

Let me say this: I'd rather have the entire list deleted, than insist that we remove placeholders. Also, another issue: if someone dies or their account is no longer being used, yet they made 100,000 edits, shouldn't they be listed? In baseball, do we delete Babe Ruth from the home run list because he died? What is the point of this list, anyway? Who 'owns' the edit counts? Is this 'public' domain? Shouldn't it be? And trying to say 'anyone can add themselves or delete themselves' simply makes this list garbage. So, either we list everyone (using placeholders to hide those that do not wish to be listed) or we might as well delete the entire list. End of story. Ryoung122 10:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed one name (see my original edit), and I then reverted to my version when this user readded my name against my clearest instruction.  Daniel  12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Did it ever occur to you, Daniel, that it was NOT MY INTENTION to re-add your name? On a list of some 3,000 persons, I simply added back the 'placeholders.' All you had to do is replace your name with 'placeholder' INSTEAD of abusing the 'revert' power to make some dozen changes all at once, when only ONE of the changes is the one you intended to use. Further, this is a typical case where DIALOGUE would have ironed out this issue...once we realized that we were 'editing past one another', then a quick compromise could have been reached. However, two attempts at dialogue were instead met with deleting my message from your talk page. Such behavior appears to me to be an abuse of power. Ryoung122 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now Daniel is blanking my comments in lieu of responding to my arguments. This is really what Wikipedia-speech-and-interview-givers do? Uh oh. --W.marsh 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The MfD was starting to lose focus, I'm guess that's why Daniel removed the section - the comments weren't centered around whether the page should be kept. I'm sure Daniel did not do it so he didn't have to respond to your arguments.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He also blanked comments I made directly about the page. At any rate, I don't believe someone with an obvious COI is a good candidate to decide what is and isn't related to the focus of the MfD... this isn't even to put him down, deletion discussions can often take unexpected (in a good way) directions from the various tangents people go on. Blanking comments, aside from obvious trolling/vandalism/etc., is not a good idea and can disrupt the gathering of consensus. --W.marsh 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, what part did you want restoring?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interest of avoiding further drama, I'll settle for a link to the pre-blanking diff, so people can read it without undue history crawling. --W.marsh 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For further discussion, please see this link, which contained more discussion near the bottom of the page between User:W.marsh, User:Daniel and User:Ryan Postlethwaite.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to say, Ryoung, that this list is nothing like the MLB homerun records. That's an accomplishment that is generally agreed upon as a mark of a great baseball player and serves as a bar to measure other players against. Using this list for that purpose is exactly the wrong thing to do. They're not comparable. <font color="#3D59AB">Leebo  <font color="#2A8E82">T /<font color="#2A8E82"> C 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongest keep. The info is username and count only, it's GFDL info, and hence there is no privacy vio. I do agree if someone doesn't want to be on it, they should be automatically opted out. This MfD is silly. Rlevse 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with strict provisions, including the "right" to remove one's own name, and an expectation that i) it won't be readded and ii) any further updates will be sensitive to user's requests to have their names removed. The discussion about having placeholders or not, I guess, can be handled if/when this MfD closes (at the moment, it seems like a keep). However, the emphasis needs to be on courtesy and being sensitive, which is why I approve of the opt-out list.  Daniel  13:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you say though, to people who want themselves removed from other lists? I'm embarrassed to be on Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies. It's probably the biggest regret (such as it is) of any of my exploits on Wikipedia. And yet, I think I'm unlikely to be allowed to remove my name from there. Until this disupute started, there was no precedent for allowing people to remove their names from lists like this. And it seems this precedent here will probably never apply anywhere else. It seems to disadvantage people like me who, while embarrassed about their name being listed somewhere, lack the support or whatever to actually get their names removed. --W.marsh 13:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also there, and we sit in a similar boat. However, that list serves a purpose. This one really serves an arguable purpose, so I believe we should be more tolerant of removals on this semi-useful list.  Daniel  13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * However, that's all just subjective. I feel like showing the top edit counts accomplishes something, it gives all kinds of information about how editting on Wikipedia plays out. I don't think including me on the RFB list really accomplishes anything but embarasses me, aside from ensuring a "complete" record (which again, doesn't seem all that important). So it's all just opinions... but opinions have power on this list, but not on the RFB list. It's an inequity. --W.marsh 13:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Of course it's subjective - if it was fact, then there would possibly be a consensus to delete the page, rather than what appears to be a consensus to keep it. I am not suggesting everyone agrees with how much value I believe this list serves, hence why I threw my opinions into the mix. I guess I see it like I see reliable sources - some are more reliabe than others.  Daniel  13:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only you threatened to block anyone who kept your name on this list... that's more than throwing your opinion into the mix. There seems to be little consensus, just loud voices, for allowing opt-outs. --W.marsh 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the talk page? Do no harm? Courtesy in Wikipedia-space?  Daniel  13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, the block-threat comment was harmful and very discourteous. So I don't understand your comment. --W.marsh 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So was readding my name, when there is clear instructions not to revert (and no discussion about my exclusion until after I reverted). The three things listed prior were regarding the ethical factors affecting inclusion - the discussion resulted in an opt-out list [which probably should be placed on MfD itself if you disagree with it], the principle of doing no harm, and courtesy in metaspace.  Daniel  13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only those principles were flatly rejected when I (in so many words) argued them with the RFB list. To me this seems a clear example of the consequence of not having enough pull, which I freely admit I don't have. I still get to oppose situations where pull helps people get their way though. --W.marsh 13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At any rate, I guess we can discuss this once the MFD is closed... but this MFD seems to show a lack of consensus for opt-outs, once the issue was exposed to a wider audience. --W.marsh 13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The threat to block someone for posting your edit count incredibly inappropriate. Your contribs are GFDL an you don't control them, such a block would probably be undone very fast. 1 != 2  15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Wizardman, the list could be of use to those with slow net connections and what a idea of the number of edits of someone. It is merely a list that is there as a statistic and does not really mean that much. Content > A lot of edits. Phgao 14:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is no more of a "privacy violation" than Special:Contributions. All the data is publically availiable. I can understand that people might not want to be on the list, but that's hardly a reason to delete it.  Hut 8.5 ; 15:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Placeholder is a way to opt out and nothing more is needed, SqueakBox 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep. We need this list to diagnose editcountitis.--MariusM 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't see how tallying publicly-available information can conceivably be considered an invasion of privacy. Comments that it is a waste of time ring especially hollow; this MfD is more of a waste of time than the article up for deletion, since if you don't like the page, you don't have to view it. Seriously, people. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if you don't want to be on The List then click logout and switch your machine off. Lugnuts 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No clear purpose, no discernible value to Wikipedia.ALR 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotes editcountitis, which may be detrimental to Wikipedia. Also, what of users like me who spend a lot of time reverting vandalism and mucking around at WP:WASS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tckma (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 October 2007
 * In fact, at editcountitis is linked at this list. We need this list to better explain the symptoms of editcountitis.--MariusM 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This self-referential cruft sends all the wrong messages. I'm reminded of a video game which displays a list of the highest scores by player.Proabivouac 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there are people who seriously don't want to be on this list, and other people are WP:DICKish enough to claim their "right" to force them onto it against their will, just because they can, then this page is divisive and contrary to the spirit of collaboration we need. Whatever use it may serve, in the eyes of some, this isn't worth it. (If kept, make a clear rule that opt-out must be respected). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can someone help me understand why users don't want their name, or a trail leading to them, on this list, because i really don't see what the problem is, its not like it effects you in any negative way, or any positive way for that matter. The way i see it, the list has two purposes, one, for the people who it matters to(who there are lots of) its something to aspire to. And two, its something for the people on the list to be proud of, not to show off, but simply because its just a way of acknowledging just fantastic you are, and what an amazing committment you've made to the project.--Jac16888 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be compared to other editors based solely on the number of edits I've made. It's insulting and degrading, not only to me, but to everyone who I am compared to.  It implies that this kind of ranking has some kind of meaningful relationship on the product, and promotes edit-counting as a means of comparison between users; something which is deeply detrimental to the project.  If you want to be "proud" of many edits you've made, fine &mdash; click "view contributions" and see how many you've got and get a warm feeling inside.  You don't need this list to do that &mdash; it's less accurate than checking manually, and all this list shows you is your "rank" versus other editors.  If you care about that, than you're not editing in the right mindset here, and I  don't want to endorse any page which encourages or facilitates that kind of thinking.  --Haemo 18:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly something to be proud of, and it doesn't have a real correlation with "devotion" to the product. You should not be judging contributors based on how many times they hit "save page", you should look at what they've done to the page. That's the value of an edit, and it's intangible. <font color="#3D59AB">Leebo  <font color="#2A8E82">T /<font color="#2A8E82"> C 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Haemo is just jealous because he only has 12,380 edits whereas I have a manly 17,787. Neil   ☎  23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete- Utterly pointless list. The only reason to keep it might be that people will be using editcounters less. Some editcounters (last I heard) can cause a drain on the servers. Or change it to an alphabetical list with only users over xxx edits. Since then there will be no numerical order it won't matter much if people remove themselves from the list. Garion96 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to WikiProject Editcountitis. --Carnildo 19:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For all those referencing Editcountitis, you do realize it's just an essay, and a "humorous" one at that. A !vote to delete would be far more meaningful if it referenced any Wikipedia policy that this article violates, and not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not article space. IDONTLIKEIT (i.e. ITHINKITISNOTHELPFULFORBUILDINGTHEENCYCLOPEDIA) is a perfectly valid reason to delete pages in project space. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we cut to the chase?
It seems to me that a compromise solution would satisfy all but the die-hards. Specifically, we agree that everyone has an absolute right to remove themselves from the list and be replaced by a placeholder or blank line. That way the relative integrity of the list, whatever it may be, is preserved and the ability of folks to opt out is protected. Can we agree on this and move on to more productive things?-- Kubigula (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many people, including me, don't think anyone has the "absolute right" to remove themselves. It is really something for consensus to decide, not individuals. 1 != 2  20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm attempting to interpret the consensus here. My read is that, so far, there is no consensus to delete the page, but there is a consensus to allow people to remove themselves.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and at that time -when everyone would choose to remove their username from the list we can "formally" delete the page. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By my count, this comparison from the first version of the current list to fate, shows that 19 individuals have removed themselves from the list; 3,789 remain. The prospect of a mass exodus seems unlikely. Alansohn 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're totally correct and meanwhile we can live w/ it. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A few people are so determined to torpedo this list that they won't even allow placeholders, because people might "track back to them and figure out who they were". The fact this is all freely available information so it's not like it's a big secret, and the fact that people wouldn't actually care, appears to have slipped past them. The list would be more useful should placeholders be present.  Neil   ☎  23:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i agree and there is no secrets indeed. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this. People here are *so* obsessed with edit counts that they're mad enough to spit nails that someone would want to remove themselves from the list with no placeholder in place because it would throw off their precious rankings by a handful of numbers? You can't be serious. I'll throw out my suggestion from above again; remake this list into an opt IN list, and then all you folks who have an obsession with this stuff can compare the lengths of your editing pencils against each other, and leave out the rest of us who actually give a damn about the project and know that edit counts have nothing at all to do with the value of an editor. You've made the default case to include everyone, so you think you have 3800 supporters. You're quite wrong. --Durin 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break
I had already argued that the main reason users were deleting their edit counts was NOT due to some bashfulness/shyness. Rather, we have a situation where, early on, a few people were very powerful in Wikipedia, and did a lot of edits. But over time, it makes sense that the 'generals' will do less work than the 'troops', no? We don't see Jimbo Wales on the edit-count list, do we? So the real issue seems to be that by placing everyone on the same, 'equal' ranking, those who have been around a long time but haven't gone bonkers on editing (perhaps stressing quality over quantity) will soon be passed by other, 'faster-growing' edit-counts. Daniel's comments below confirms as much:

One of the two reasons I want my name off this list is because, nearly every media interview I do, the interviewer asks me about this list (someone must have forwarded it around through AP etc.), and they look at my number (whatever it is - somewhere in the 300's, IIRC), and imply that I'm the nth 'best'/'most powerful'/'most relevant' Wikipedian, something I'm sick and tired of explaining. I feel that it should be within common courtesy for me to remove my name from the list on this reason alone. The other reason, which is far more sensitive and will not be explained here, (IMO) justifies extreme measures. Daniel 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, some may argue that edit-count alone shouldn't mean anything. But I take this as, for example, and argument regarding 'population of cities.' No one would argue that Mesa, Arizona is a more important city than Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania simply because it currently has a higher population count. Yet, it must be said that 'population count' counts for SOMETHING...certainly a city of 442,000 people is more significant than one of, say, 50,000 people.

So, perhaps a compromise could be reached: institute 'levels'. That is, we can have 'top-level administrators' with an edit-count list separate from 'editors' with an edit-count list. Ryoung122 00:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC) If anyone assigns additional value to the numbers, it's because they are making the conscious decision to do so, and nothing that we do can change the attitudes of other people. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Grow up & keep. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"> Carbon Monoxide  00:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryoung, are we going to leave Pittsburgh and go live in Mesa just because living in Pittsburgh may be seen as "luxurious"? Daniel can explain to the interviewer that he personally does not agree w/ what the question suggests and feel free to remove his name from the list. I just don't see Rich being kind of more powerful or privileged than anyone else. I even see some desysoped admins on the top of the list. So? We usually refer to experienced editors as established ones but that is more a question of quality than that of quantity. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  01:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - There are no issues with this page. If you don't want to be on the list, remove yourself, and DefendEachOther - someone should back you up.  No need to delete this page because some people are being jerky about it, just keep them in line. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, no issues here. That's why we're not having now 74kb long discussion. Heck this is a speedy keep! Good grief. Count me as one of your "jerks". And while you're at it, go do another 100 spelling corrections using an automated program so you pass somebody on the list and become more important. --Durin 02:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin, remember that correcting spelling does help Wikipedia. Even though it isn't as glamorous as writing articles, maintenance work still has to be done. Deleting some list of users is not going to stop editcountitis. Would you rather than the person not make the 100 corrections leaving Wikipedia with 100 more edits to be done. I do not think that the encyclopedia should be harmed just because some people are editing it for "the wrong reason". <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  03:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares per Walton. 75KB of discussion generated by Wikidick measuring, sheesh. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as we have the right to opt out, really, who cares? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 05:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Durin and others. Worthless, self-referential cruft which has nothing to do with creating an encyclopaedia. --Folantin 12:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't really care if people want to play games on Wikipedia, so long as they don't interfere with people who are engaged in productive activity. In this case, the game-players seem intent on dragging the rest of the project into their time-sink. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to explain that? I'm on the list, and enjoy checking it on occasion, but I spend a whopping five seconds here. I'm curious as to why you think you're in a position to cast judgement over how someone edits on Wikipedia; unless you can provide a list of editors whose sole contributions are edits to the page, what does it matter where someone edits? All this talk about un-encyclopedic blah blah is utterly ridiculous; personally speaking, this MfD has wasted much more of my time than the page it's attempting to delete. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is a GFDL project. There is not a right to "privacy" in wiki edits. Tyrenius 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion is because of "I don't like it." Then don't read it. SchmuckyTheCat
 * Keep, primarily because it is really interesting to a lot of people. Kind of like walking past a mirror, it's hard not to look. It's a little indulgent, but so what. People work hard here, a little indulgence, a whimsical moment. It really isn't hurting the encyclopedia. Modernist 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I abhor editcountitis.  But I like this page just fine.  It's an interesting collection of Wikipedia statistics which seems highly unlikely to me to cause any of the problems associated with editcountitis.--Father Goose 01:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First I would like to say that since wikipedia is by its very nature freely accessible I question why someone would even care who knows how many edits they have. Though I don't have editcountitis I do like to look at this from time to time, especially if I want to ask a question I will usually ask it of someone who is towards the top of the list.--Kumioko 02:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Reasoning behind delete nomination is unconvincing; the list is notable and of value to the community. Badagnani 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page has generated generally positive publicity for Wikipedia (from the Globe & Mail, the Chicago Sun-Times, local publications, etc. ) No need to delete this page which generates positive publicity for Wikipedia when there are plenty of articles which generate considerable negative publicity. If we want to delete pages which cause actual harm to Wikipedia, let's start with the pages which cause actual negative publicity for Wikipedia and potential harm to living people first. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent points!  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 06:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll also note this is actually the page's third nomination for deletion, not the second as stated at the top of the page:
 * First nom (kept)
 * Second nom (speedy kept) Firsfron of Ronchester  21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No one ever claimed user contribs were private. There are tons of database stats available even without this page, such as here, which includes user stats. This is an open project, and you should expect everything you do here to be publicly viewable. As the edit count tool states, "If you do not wish your edit data to be made publically available, you should not make any edits or contributions to Wikimedia projects." <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:16, 10/21/2007
 * Keep per Casliber ... for at least some, it promotes editing. -- Prove It (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for one of the same reasons I gave to delete BJAODN - If it causes this much divisiveness, with so little positive impact in the effort to build an encyclopedia (and I'm not really sure what that positive impact is), it needs to go. Mr.  Z- man  18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the divisiveness? I've seen this argument before and I don't like it. If you mean the sheer length of this MfD, with its varied responses, that's what MfDs are. More responses mean that this is something the community cares about. That doesn't make it damaging -- although it might make it controversial (from a quick glance most of the !votes are Keep though). I think it's a big mistake to say that if an MfD gets too long then that's evidence the page should be deleted, because then you make people in favor of a Keep afraid to speak up, lest they make the subject look too "divisive". You'd get the same length MfD if you nominated the main page for deletion, with the same varied responses. That doesn't mean it should go. It means people care. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:12, 10/21/2007
 * The Main Page would be speedy kept after 30 seconds on MFD. This should be a totally uncontroversial page; its not like some sort of dynamic discussion page that gets heated arguments or lots of changes. I would expect a page like that, if nominated for deletion, to be controversial. This is a fairly static page, updated every few months, causing edit warring and a controversial MFD. Since it does not do anything substantial to help build or maintain the encyclopedia, I don't think it is worth the controversy. Its not just becasue the MFD is long, but look at some of the complaints; edit warring, privacy problems, OWNership; its a list! Its just statistics! If we can remove controversy without making it harder to improve/maintain the encyclopedia, we should do it. Please tell me, how does this list make the encyclopedia better? What is its purpose in relation to the encyclopedia? Mr.  Z- man  20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of this page, many people edit more in hopes of making it to this list. Some people already on the list edit more in hopes of having a higher place on this list. Even if someone only makes spelling corrections and little things like that, it is helping the encyclopedia. By deleting this page, people will have less incentive to edit. Surely encouraging people to edit the encyclopedia should be reason enough for you? <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  20:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please tell me, how does this list make the encyclopedia worse? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Great question. I'm not sure it makes it worse, but what it does do is promote selfish(aka self centered)/competitive/hierarchical energies at the expense of unselfish/collaborative/community energies.That may be hard to comprehend so I will try an analogy. Would you prefer to work at Citibank or Doctors Without Borders? That may be the best way to visualize the profound effect this list can have. You can see all around this edit the quite practical rationale that the competitive desire to move up the list is "good" for the wiki and from a physical sense that may be true. But what about the soul of the wiki? Is there one? Could there be one? Should there be one? I think so...and how is it affected by Users rushing through articles piling up edit counts???? I think you can choose community or competition, but you can not really have both in excellence because(dare I say it) they are,in fact,mutually exclusive. Having said that, the tide is with the "keepers" and getting stronger by the second. You might want to check out Widget (economics); if you are truly interested. Makefairnotbombs 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Got any evidence that it promotes that? As far as I can tell, it's just a statistical page that some people have gotten into a moral panic over.--Father Goose 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion; but I think it's also quite obvious. Makefairnotbombs 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see how a collection of statistics can promote selfishness. I also don't see how community and competition are mutually exclusive. Your entire summary blows this entire thing waaaaaaaaay out of proportion; it's just a list, and nothing more. It's not profound, it's just a tally of how many times a person has hit the "Save page" button
 * "nothing that we do can change the attitudes of other people"? Get real. Humans are quite easily brainwashed, or haven't you noticed? Why do you think we smoke cancer sticks? The list is an obvious achievement counter; much like notches on a gun in the old Americanm West. If you like it and are into it then go for it; but let's at least be honest about it; and then go vote for american idol #2 that's two,2 fingers, text ai2.; because that counts too. Either ya get it or ya don't; and hilariously 70% of the viewers here simply don't which is not only sad but prophetic as hell. Bossy1981 20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per SchmuckyTheCat, Ezhiki, and several others. Deleting WP:1000 will not prevent editcountitis because there are other ways to do it.  Appearing on an edit-counting list should have some kind of opt-out provision, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it (and I am a "small l" libertarian).  The delete votes seem to paint the picture that making the statement, "John Smith has 23,456 edits on Wikipedia" is in the same league as posting on a user's personal information on a Wikipedia: page without their consent.  This is a privacy violation; simply saying how many edits they have is not. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for heaven's sake. Doesn't hurt anyone.  Edit count, like it or not, gives some indication of a person's dedication to the project:  not an absolute one, but a general idea.  Some of us have been here for years, and we actually like seeing our names on the list:  I quote La Rochefoucauld, who is always right about everything:  "envy is more implacable than hatred."  Antandrus  (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - all this is is a compilation of data that's already freely available. It is a convenience to those who would rather not download and parse database dumps. It is a collection of numbers and words. It isn't an attack or an endorsement. I can understand deleting an attack, or an endorsement of something ridiculous, but this is a list, and as a mere list, is informative, interesting, and doesn't need to be deleted. <font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres ( <font color="#000">t .l ) 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Oh, I'm awake.  You mean this much conversation is generated over a list?  Keep per, every who wants to keep it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: First, the presence of edit-warring is not itself a reason for deletion. Second, while "edit countitis" can be fatal, it is interesting to be able to compare the number of contributions made by two or more users, and this in itself doesn't do any harm.  Third, I fail to see the privacy issue: if someone wants to keep private, then why create an account at all?  --RFBailey 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting to preempt a feared proliferation of editcountitis is quite disingenuous. We have no control over how anything, on Wikipedia or otherwise, is misused. If someone is using this to satisfy their editcountitis urges, then tell them to grow up, not to deprive others of statistical information. If I may be profane, don't burn the bulletin board because someone stuck a picture of a penis on it. — Kurykh  03:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This will be hard to maintain and WannabeKate terminates at 45,000 so we don't know anything beyond that. This also promotes WP:Editcountitis. <font color="Blue">Marlith  T / C  03:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WannabeKate is not the only edit counter, you know. The numbers on the page are taken from database dumps. — Kurykh  03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that this list is entirely independent of WannabeKate. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting, funny and worrisome. ;-) --evrik (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotes editcountitis as stated before and does nothing to contribute to the 'pedia as a whole. No compelling reason to keep this sort of thing around, particularly if there are privacy concerns going on. <b style="color:#0000FF;">ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 04:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can anyone you (or anyone else) explain what the privacy issues are? There is far more information about any editor on their user and talk pages and in their actual edit history, than could possibly be distilled from any single number. Daniel has repeatedly referenced some sort of super-secret reason for why disclosure of his edit count would invade his privacy, (while the availability of all the other Wikipedia public domain info about him wouldn't), yet I am still unable to see the potential harm caused by a single number. Can anyone make a compelling case on the "privacy concern" issue? Alansohn 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone does not want to appear on a list then they should not be on said list, period. The only exceptions to that should be if the list serves some real, tangible purpose to the 'pedia - a list of administrators, a list of banned users, a list of known socks, things like that.  A list of "users by edits" which is, either way you look at it, an unnecessary list, is not one that users should be compelled to be listed on.  That there are other ways of determining someone's edit count is immaterial to the fact that if they don't want to be associated with said list then they should not have to be.  That this list has caused editors headaches in this regard is reason enough not to keep it. <b style="color:#0000FF;">ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Above and beyond the fact that you didn't bother to answer the question as to how disclosure of a number would violate one's privacy while all the other user/talk pages and edit history don't, is the question of how you're trying to solve your "problem". The fewer than 20 individuals who have removed themselves from the latest list (and anyone else who might have an issue) will remain free to be excluded from the list. Especially as consensus is overwhelming clear that this list will be retained, these over the top concerns over "editor headaches" inflicted by this list should be addressed by a means that actually addresses the problem by allowing an opt-out. There are far greater real headaches -- vandalism, etc. -- that would actually solve problems for Wikipedia before even expressing a thought on this article. Alansohn 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Privacy was a poor word choice and I should have used instead something to the effect of user ability to not appear on said list. In any case, my original (and main) concern is that this list promotes the value of editcounts and does not contribute to the project in a constructive manner.  The privacy/opt out issue is only "icing on the cake" in terms of why I feel the list should be deleted.  I still feel the list should not be kept. <b style="color:#0000FF;">ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 16:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ..... but emphatically ensure it cannot be mistakenly taken to endorse any kind of reputation based system based on edit count. It is useful or interesting to know how the top edit volumes break down, I've used it once or twice that way, and edit counts are open information to anyone who cares to know them. However in light of strong concerns that this page promotes "status by edit count competition", I've rewritten the caveats and warnings to make them a lot more to the point, and make the page clearer as to its purpose and interpretation. This should help, if the page does end up being kept. FT2 (Talk 12:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and don't honor opt-out requests. If you are so sick and tired of explaining to every darn interviewer that editcount isn't everything, well, that's something they need to be told. I might be ok with allowing asterisks in place of people's names, but that's a discussion for the talk page. You don't want your edit count so high, then you might want to use a few different accounts to spread them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeg92 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are no serious issues with the page. feydey 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The only thing recorded is username and edit count number with is GDFL and easily found anyways. There is no privacy issue here. Not to mention it could actually promote editing. --Djsasso 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was encouraged when I found my name on this list for the first time. I felt like I was making a difference to something that mattered. Keep it to encourage new contributors to continue with this project.  Royal broil  20:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FINALLY; We have the honest person who states clearly what every single person here already knows. The list is an achievement count. And since most of us have already accepted that our lives will be graded in numbers(like bank account numbers) rather than ideas, this is as good as it gets in terms of achievement and success. "I felt like I was making a difference to something that mattered". How sad; how true, how succinct; how scarey. Bossy1981 20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The limitations of this metric are already well disclosed at the top of the page.  But even with those limitations, this is sometimes a useful gauge of some aspects of a user's behavior and experience.  As others have said above, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on this metric.  Rossami (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2007 (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.