Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

List of non-admins with high edit counts
League tables of Wikipedians are a bad idea- this is a collaborative not a competitive project. And although there is a disclaimer on this page, it encourages the tendency to think that adminship is a reward for a certain number of edits. What other purpose can this serve? Doc (?) 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment/ Why didn't you put a Vfd on this article List of Wikipedians by number of edits as well, another competitive league table that encourages the deadly disorder countititis?


 * Delete - I was going to vote to keep, but Doc's arguments are convincing, and it can be (AFAIK) easily recreated when and if needed - I thought the original use, to find people to nominate who had somehow been missed, is useful, but it should be recreated when needed, not kept around to encourage Template:User want admin type of stuff. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That makes very little sense. You admit there is a use for it (and it was that original use that I intended, that nobody would ever "slip through the cracks"), but you say that the list should only be recreated as necessary.... I don't understand this at all. You're saying the list should not exist, but that it should exist when it becomes necessary for it to exist. Also, as the creator of the list, I can say that it was not as easy as you imagine to create the list, for 3 reasons: I was not that familiar with regular expression manipulation, I now know that the program I was using sucked, and the various lists that already exist on Wikipedia, which were used to create this list, are not all properly formatted to make it a simple one-step comparison. The List of Admins, for example, is all over the place in terms of formatting. Something is only ever simple if you assume that you won't be the one that has to "recreate it as necessary" in the future... &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-2 15:20
 * Neutral, leaning keep. I'm totally anti-editcountitus, but I don't really think this page is harmful. Why not kill off WP:1000? :-/ R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - We don't generally delete reports just because they haven't been updated recently. I think lists like this are good because they help identify experienced contributors who are too humble to self-nominate.  Those are exactly the kind of editors I think should become admins.  Just because not everyone on this list should be promoted doesn't mean it's not useful.  If this encourages people to make more edits, as long as they are improving Wikipedia, I can't really complain. -- Beland 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash; Dan | Talk 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really like it either, for those reasons. It's not what belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, IMO. But as a personal thing it's not that objectionable if someone wants to use it for their own, (silly) purposes. I would say userfy to the originator (or whoever wants it). Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not about competing; it's about creating a sense of comradery among those who chose not to become admins (as well as a few who tried and failed). Lists like this promote a sense of community. Let's keep this, and add some new interesting ones! Owen&times; &#9742;  02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no harm in having this. I agree with the above support arguments. As for promoting compettion, I would disagree (there are other pages out there which are far more guilty of this e.g. WP:1000). Enochlau 03:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep even if we get a backup to kate's tool, what's wrong with this? -Greg Asche (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Harmless --JAranda'' | watz sup 03:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Not only harmless, but very useful. Sure, editcountitis is a problem, and hopefully by now everyone realises that it is not the only criterion when administration is being considered. But it is extraordinarily useful to have a list of those who, by dint of their high edit counts, everyone thinks automatically is an admin. How many times at RFA do you see "I could have sworn he/she was an admin!"? This list presents some of the more obvious names that aren't admins, using a simple and straightforward criterion, and is a gentle nudge to everyone that some of these names perhaps should be nominated. Grutness...  wha?  03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Good clean fun. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 03:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the list is useful and does no harm by itself. It can be misused, as any other list in the Wikipedia namespace, but then, the problem is with those who misuse it, not with the list itself. Edit count is not the only factor in the determination of admin status, but the list can help find editors to analyze and scrutinize with the intent of a possible RFA. Tito xd (?!?) 03:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current version is descended from user:Rick Block/WP600 not admins which I started for the purpose of drawing attention to several hundred editors with high edit counts who aren't admins and allowing them to indicate whether they're even interested in becoming admins. There are enough folks around here that it is entirely possible to slip through the cracks and become a well known, well respected editor that virtually everyone assumes is an admin but isn't (I believe I was in this class until a few months ago).  Could I or anyone on this list self-nom?  Sure.  But, I didn't.  AlistairMcMillan didn't.  Beland didn't.  Bluemoose didn't.  DanielCD, Darwinek, Denelson83,  Edcolins, didn't.  Need I go on (there are about 30 more)?  I certainly won't claim this list is the only thing that instigated all these rfas.  However, I suspect it was a contributing factor in at least some of them.  The list can be nearly automatically generated from WP:1000 and WP:LA, except for the part about "do you have any interest in becoming an admin".  I vehemently reject SlimVirgin's assertion (elsewhere) that nominating people from this list is irresponsible.  IMO what's irresponsible is not to examine the contributions of folks on this list who've indicated an interest and not to nominate those who look suitable. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no grounds for this to be deleted other than someone who dislikes those of us who use edit counts as a factor in voting.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 04:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There are tons of non-competitive, non-RfA wiki-nerd reasons for this (is there any heavy editor I don't know? I'll send them wiki-flowers!)  It's a community tool, and like all tools, can be used for good or ill... but that's no reason to kill it. Xoloz 04:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; I find this list somewhat useful. It doesn't really do any harm.  Rob e  rt  T 04:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems useful Klonimus 06:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per JesseW.-- NS LE  ( Commu nicate! ) < Contribs > 06:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like this is going to make it, but I wanted to throw my vote in here anyway. This is immensely interesting, and there's no real reason to get rid of it other than immature users who want to create castes where there are none. Karmafist 07:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to disagree with the nominator of the article because it is proof enough that you can remain a non-admin despite a huge edit count. Of the list, only a few have shown interest in becoming admins - a further pointer that while admin status may help improve productivity, a lack of the status is no deterrent to doing good quantity/quality of work. --Gurubrahma 07:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite useful. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 08:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a useful list for finding possible RfA candidates. &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep eminently useful list. Marskell 08:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning mildly towards delete. If keeping, edit to make it much clearer that users should not be nominated for adminship on the basis of number of edits without very careful checks of their suitability. Or create a page for Wikipedians with high edit counts (if it doesn't already exist), and merge, putting "admin" after the names of those who are admins. Ann Heneghan (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I see no downside to allowing the circulation of accurate information that doesn't hurt anyone. Let's revise the intro to clarify that number of edits does not correlate to adminship. BrandonYusufToropov 11:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Useful list. I've nominated an editor (Edcolins) from this list that I did not have previous interactions with. His only apparent mention of desiring to be an admin was on this list. Nobody nominated him. As a result of this list, I did. He cleared 27-1. --Durin 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - the list serves the useful purpose of alerting us to the fact that some of those folks who fit cliche #1 (I thought he was already an admin) are not, and might like to be. BD2412  T 01:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Useful information but I am unsure that it belongs in the Wikipedia space. I still would prefer pages such as this and my User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records on user sub-pages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I started the list, and while I do not believe we should focus entirely on edit counts, this list serves to prevent anyone from ever "slipping through the cracks", so that people who aren't actively spamming "Delete per ASDF" or "Keep per ASDF" on AFD pages, but are actively and continuously editing Wikipedia in other productive, but less noticeable, ways are not missed. This list only serves as a starting point, not the final determination. I thought I laid that out pretty clearly in the intro text, but if it's not that clear, anyone can always change that. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-2 15:10


 * Strong Keep. Interesting list. The campaign against countedititis (which has never been diagnosed as a disease or psychotic condition) is getting both boring and duisturbing. Deleting this article would be a bit like the 2 spam notices at Kate's counter, the moral minority in lecture mode. The anti countedititis tendency needs strongly opposing, SqueakBox 16:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It's an interesting list, and it serves as a great starting point for those who are looking for editors to nominate in RfA.  (It needs to be updated too... ;-) ) --Idont Havaname 03:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It gives us a chance to see who should be nominated at RFA without hassle (although of course that's not all that is checked for). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'd rather see someone's userpage than a number. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And this list is stopping you from seeing people's user pages? This makes no sense. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-5 15:01
 * Keep, a good reference for RfA nominations. feydey 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete edit counts are not an indicator of adminship suitability. Most of the users with higher counts have either declined or are likely to be opposed. NSR (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, because if some people don't want to be admins, they all must not want to be admins. At least this list lets you know which people have declined, so that they aren't constantly being bugged with requests for nomination. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-5 15:01
 * Some of them have declined, some haven't. Do you know which ones have without checking? And what's the easiest way of checking? This list... Grutness...  wha?  22:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per RickBlock. Bjelleklang -  talk 00:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful for cross-referencing nominations at RfA. --Andylkl (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's interesting and useful. -- DS1953 talk 07:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep get crunk  juice  21:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep While I am generally a deletionist, this doesn't seem to actually meet any of the criteria for deletion of which I am presently aware, unless "protect people against editcountitis" has been added to a list I overlooked. --Kgf0 02:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list has helped me identify several successful candidates for adminship.  On what grounds should this document be deleted?  It is unclear to me what the basis is for this nomination.  Hall Monitor 18:24, 9 November 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.