Wikipedia talk:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia/Archive 3

List of notable Wikipedians
I suggest the mainspace article List of notable Wikipedians be merged with this wikipedia space article. Tim! 11:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is the standard of verification is different. Article space requires independent proof they really are Wikipedians.  The Wikipedia space list can be based largely on the say-so of the account holder, or what looks likely.  --Rob 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not like the list was making any effort to adhere to a standard of verification, so I've redirected it here. --Michael Snow 23:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just when I figured out that each of the similar pages has it's own unique purpose, two of them get merged--and completely merged--without creating separate subsections to distinguish between those with articles about themselves and those who are notable but don't have articles about themselves. The "standard of verification" was just one difference between List of notable Wikipedians and the Wikipedians with articles project page. Now, once again, I can't find an article with notable Wikipedians without articles. Please revert the redirection. -Barry- 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian D Foy and Scarpia
The following entry keeps getting reverted for differing reasons by blatant vandal (for other reasons) user:Pudgenet:
 * Brian D Foy – : Scarpia is likely the publisher and editor of The Perl Review, and co-author of books on Perl. He reverted an edit to Perl ( here ) that may show him and/or Perl in a bad light. With that reversion, a paragraph containing blatant vandalism was added back to the article, which Scarpia didn't write, though he presumably would have seen the edit summary indicating the vandalism and shouldn't have reinserted that paragraph. Previously, he had reverted a talk page entry that might have shown him in a bad light.

Note what Rob said on this talk page: "Article space requires independent proof they really are Wikipedians. The Wikipedia space list can be based largely on the say-so of the account holder, or what looks likely." and what it says on the project page: Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work."

I have about six reasons for believing Scarpia is Brian D Foy. Should I go through them? Would some administrator be kind enough to ask Scarpia himself? -Barry- 03:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to list the user (even if there's not rock solid proof). But, I ask you avoid a negative tone.  If you know a user is a certain person (with an article), mention that here, but please mention nothing else.  Any other relevant info (such as the basis for the conclusion), can go on the relevant talk page.  --Rob 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But there should probably be mention of whether the user received one of the official warnings, or at least a last warning, for vandalism. Or maybe mention only when an administrator got involved. Then the entry could give the date of the relevant discussion that exists on the user's talk page to make it easy to find. Maybe something simple like a link that says, for example, "March 20, 2006 controversy" that leads to the user's talk page. -Barry- 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's a relevant link, then sure, provide that. But I wouldn't even put a label on it.  If people looking up a person here, see the link, they'll follow it, and figure it out.  I don't mean to be picky, but I don't like the word "controversy" added here, because this list could be turned into something negative (if others do the same).  I don't want anybody to feel there's something bad (or controversial) about being named on this list.  When adding a comment or note to one entry, we have to think about the cummulative effect of such notes on the overall list, making people, legitimately not want to be included in the list.  If enough people objected to being on this list, I suspect it would be eliminated. --Rob 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

-Barry-: please stop lying. You're the one guilty of multiple instances of vandalism, and have repeatedly reverted removals of those acts of vandalism. I had precisely one, and it was a joke, and I've paid my penance. And then you lied about Scarpia by saying my vandalism was his fault when he reverted your other vandalism, just because that reversion also, unfortunately, included re-adding my vandalism. Give it up. You're trying to make this about me, but everyone agrees, including Rob and Durin, that your edits I've removed have been inappropriate. You seem incapable of posting with a NPOV, and this is the real problem. Maybe I've been a jerk, and maybe I've not summarized my edits appropriately, but this is not about me: improve your careless edits. If you can. Which I doubt. But hey, you finally made a reasonable edit on THIS page, so maybe I am wrong, and there is actually hope for you, after all. Pudge 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You've reverted many edits and I don't want to criticize each case, but I made my case on the appropriate talk page and in my edit summaries. I haven't vandalized anything, as the administrator who got involved said. At least not clearly...I forgot his exact words.


 * I won't give Scarpia the benefit of the doubt considering he'd have to have missed both the vandalism in the paragraph that he reinserted as well as the edit summary pointing it out, and because of his other acts, which I've just linked to next to his entry. -Barry- 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Barry, given how personal your taking this, and condemning anybody who disagrees with you (per your edit summary) I suggest you leave this entry alone, and let neutral editors take over. --Rob 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the edit summary in which I used rvv for your edit? You added a link next to brian d foy's entry that has nothing to do with him. It's an anti -Barry- link. You explained yourself (it was an accident), and I explained myself here and I apologized. I'm not neutral, but I added appropriate content based on the discussion on this talk page. Don't let the fact that I called you a vandal get in the way of the main issue, which is what was agreed on and whether Pudgenet has attempted to work it out. -Barry- 18:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look: you have a vendetta against Scarpia and brian d foy; this much is clearly obvious. You are attempting to make him look bad; this, too, is obviously true.  That is your only point here; if not for your personal vendetta, you would not care.  You are being a child.  Link to information that shows his identity if you must, but links that carry over your petty squabbles with him are clearly inappropriate to the purpose of this page.  I saw no agreement here that says linking to him being a "vandal" is appropriate; we interpret Rob's statement differently.  If I am wrong, so be it, but I can't imagine that anyone would think such blatant personal attacks by you would be appropriate to this page. Pudge 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The overall problem here is that Scarpia has not acknowledged that he is brian d foy. Rob, how does that jive with Harassment which prohibits posting of personal information. Steve p 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I think the fact that the links Barry added had nothing to do with Scarpia's identity is the real problem. Rob said rock-solid proof is not required, and I accept that.  But look at the actual links: they have nothing to do with the point of this page, and as Rob said, "If you know a user is a certain person (with an article), mention that here, but please mention nothing else.  Any other relevant info (such as the basis for the conclusion), can go on the relevant talk page."


 * So let's look at the links Barry keeps adding. One is Scarpia removing a personal attack against brian d foy, by Barry himself,  in a talk page.  Another is reverting an edit according to consensus, which mentioned brian d foy.  Neither of these is significant evidence Scarpia is brian d foy, and more to the point, in the context, they are clearly added by Barry only to make Scarpia look bad, as the other edits have nothing at all to do with Scarpia's identity.  One is merely an edit where Scarpia removed content according to consensus .  Another is removing the childish "welcome!" message Barry added, and another separate note, on Scarpia's OWN TALK PAGE , .  Pray tell me what any of those have to do with the topic of this page.


 * Then there's the bias discussion, which also has no evidence of Scarpia's identity, and merely shows beyond reasonable doubt that Barry is, indeed, against consensus, and that the edits Scarpia made to that effect were appropriate.


 * Objectively speaking, I just don't see the relevance of any of this to this article, any more than putting any random edits by anyone else next to their name, and this, in conjunction with the fact that Barry has admitted that he is trying to show that Scarpia is a vandal, and the fact that I saw no one else agreeing with Barry that the links "showing" Scarpia is a vandal (which I think I've proved do not do that anyway) belong here, is why I've persisted in removing the links. Pudge 19:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This may be relevant: "Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work." I think that pointing to pages that may help indicate whether these Wikipedians are violating NPOV is consistant with the purpose of the project page. -Barry- 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, except that only one of your links had anything to do with this.  was indeed about brian d foy, but was a personal attack by you of brian d foy on a *talk* page (granted, only the first paragraph was an attack, but still), so does not apply.   has nothing to do with brian d foy at all (unless you think Scarpia is both brian d foy and Randal Schwartz?).  And the others were just you trying to annoy him on his own user talk page, which also do not apply.


 * Again, the only link you had that might be relevant is . That is it: you have no other examples.  And in this example, it is Scarpia reverting an edit that others had already reverted anyway, and that every other editor who voiced an opinion agreed was a good edit.  So even if Scarpia and brian d foy are the same person, I don't think most people could care less that your one example was a perfectly fine edit supported by unanimous (minus you) consensus. And it only highlights the fact that you are simply out to get Scarpia, since it was your edit he reverted (again, with unanimous support).


 * You've identified that you think Scarpia is brian d foy. I don't care about that.  That in itself is sufficient; if Scarpia edits something about brian d foy in the future, then you can raise the red flag by pointing here, rather than trying to point to links of perfectly appropriate edits *even if* Scarpia and brian d foy are the same person. You are clearly being abusive, and you're not fooling anyone, and I have nothing more to say to you on the matter. Pudge 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

edits made for 68.39.174.238

 * 1) Bjornar Simonsen and Andrew Sylvia need to be removed as their articels have been deleted.
 * Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of JackSarfatti needs to be corrected ([[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets...)

I did the three changes listed above. One more request remains (see below). --JWSchmidt 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanx. 68.39.174.238 01:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit request: marking bans

 * 1) Someone should probably note that Beckjord and Igor Bogdanov are banned as Daniel Brandt's entry notes that as well.


 * I noted it for Bogdanov, but not for Beckjord, as he's only blocked for a year, not indefinitely. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 19:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

310539 - Terry Waite
identified himself as Terry Waite, changing that article and its talk page. I don't know what constitutes enough evidence to warrant inclusion on this page (we shouldn't just be taking people's word for it, particularly with genuinely famous and definately non-technical people like Waite). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IP - Marilyn Hall Patel
identified herself as Marilyn Hall Patel, changing that article. The IP is consistent with the subject's place of work (the San Francisco Bay area in California), and she knew what a "senior judge" really means, but other than that there's no realy evidence that the IP really belongs to this person. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
"US TV host Indefinetly blocked" is a misspelling.Roberthoff82 08:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed that entry as it was incorrect: The account was blocked as a likely impostor (EG. There was no proof that it was him). 68.39.174.238 03:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It happened during the time the broadcast would have been taped. It was either him, or authorized by him. --  Zanimum 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Bassford
User:Cbassford1 has identified himself as Christopher Bassford in the creation of the article O. J. Matthijs Jolles, which contains text from his book. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to wikify and categorize his biography. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

blocked Wikipedians with articles
I noticed that White Dawg's alleged alias User:BrowardPlaya has been blocked. Is there any reason for having blocked users appear on this page? Just thought I'd check here before I end up on some kind of deletion spree. G Rose 14:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, why shouldn't we list blocked editors? I don't really see a reason why we should remove them in the first place. --Conti|&#9993; 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This may not be the place to track down sock puppets, but it isn't definite that White Dawg has stopped editing. See . I agree with ContiE's general point. -Will Beback · † · 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I guess I don't really have an argument for removing notes on blocked users. It might be nice, though, to have the page divided up according to whether the Wikipedian is active or not.  It's cool to know about the presence of a celebrity on Wikipedia, but not so interesting once you find out that he/she was just a vandal. G Rose 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hard to keep track of who is active or inactive, or even to define what we'd mean by "activity". It'd be even stickier to label some of these folks as vandals, at least in this context. -Will Beback · † · 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's apparently some notion of "active" out there, as many of the users on the list are labeled "not active". As far as the vandal thing, I was referring to users who had been blocked from editing.  Since notes of that kind already exist, there's nothing sticky about it.
 * I'm not really adamant about changing anything here, I'm just wondering about ways to better organize the page. My observation is that, since many users are listed as "not active" or "blocked", there might be some benefit in organizing the users based on those attributes. G Rose 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of sentence
I propose deleting the following sentence: "Also, remember that nothing in a user account's edit history should be held against the reputation of its operator, famous or not, in real life." That's completely ridiculous. Why would one assert that someone's actions in Wikipedia should not reflect on the editor responsible for those actions? Is there some rationale for this statement of which I am unaware? --ElKevbo 10:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Its doesnt refer to the actions but to the content/articles being edited. Example a US Senator who publicily/personally opposes abortion could have made edits to the article section on Abortion that are opposite to the Senators public position. Gnangarra 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. If that's what is meant then the sentence needs to be rewritten for clarity.  --ElKevbo 10:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Individuals suggesting corrections to their pages
Should we include people who have emailed Wikipedia? Or is this confidential? -- Zanimum 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, should we include people who have emailed Wikipedia with corrections to their articles? --  Zanimum 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello? --  Zanimum 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, people who emailed Wikipedia can hardly be seen as Wikipedians, IMHO, so I wouldn't include them here. It'd also be a mess to verify this, anyways. --Conti|&#9993; 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just OTRS messages, which each have numbers. --  Zanimum 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, point taken. Still, I wouldn't consider people who email Wikipedia to be Wikipedians. --Conti|&#9993; 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither do I. Frankly, I don't even consider most of the people in this page as Wikipedians. But we do already have a section of the article named "Individuals suggesting corrections to their pages". It includes Madeleine Albright, Walter Block, Noam Chomsky, Harlan Ellison, and Mike Watt. The people I helped on OTRS included the co-star of a cult-classic 1960s TV series, an Oscar winning songstress, and a Grammy winning songstress. Plus a few other stars of lesser importance, all TV. And with all of them, I'm 99.9% sure they're authentic. --  Zanimum 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I actually never noticed that section. It'd be quite interesting to have a list of all celebrities/notable people that have suggested corrections to their articles through OTRS, but that wouldn't be "Wikipedians with articles" anymore. You could always create a new article, of course. --Conti|&#9993; 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we singling out certain Wikipedians for unwelcome scrutiny?
I am concerned that this page may have the effect of singling out the Wikipedians on it for unwelcome scrutiny. Having read the introductory paragraphs, I can see that care was taken to be sensitive to the interests of these people. Even so, I worry that this list could be a magnet for bad forms of attention, such as


 * vandalism
 * trolling
 * stalking

Even the scrutiny that this page endorses could have a chilling effect. Consider the justifications for the existence of this page laid out in paragraph two:

All editors should be careful of these users' edits for two reasons: One, they may edit their own articles, which raises the possibility of vanity editing and POV. Two, sweeping edits they make to their articles may be attempts to remove libel against them (something that missed WP:BLP). In any case, such edits should be gone over carefully and discussed with them before taking any action.

Sentence one suggests we should anticipate that people listed on this page will make bad edits, and prepare pre-emptively to correct them. This could be considered a violation of WP:AGF.

Sentences two and three suggest that we should be wary of these users because of WP:BLP concerns, and that we should be careful while interacting with them. Despite the good intentions behind this argument, it has the effect of creating a divide between the subjects of this list and the rest of us who come across them.

I don't believe this kind of division is healthy for Wikipedia. Thankfully, I am not a notable Wikipedian, but I would feel uncomfortable if I found myself on this list.

I see that I have missed the 2007-02-27 deletion debate for this article. I will not challenge the consensus in favor of keeping this page, although I would have voted delete in the debate.

However, I would like to see the second paragraph changed or removed. My first instinct is to edit it, but I don't think that will be effective; apparently the paragraph already accurately describes the main reasons Wikipedians use this page. Softening the language would only detract from clarity.

On the other hand, I find the Category:Notable_Wikipedians page less off-putting, primarily because it lacks the commentary of this project's introduction. It does not highlight and tacitly endorse a potentially upsetting use of information.

So, I recommend deleting the second paragraph of the introduction. Does anyone else share my concerns? If so, what should we do about this? Baileypalblue 11:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Some bogus names
Some of these seem bogus. How was their status ascertained for certain? Aaron Bowen 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you say more about what seems bogus? Anchoress 10:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How do we verify the identity of a Wikipedian who claims to be the subject of an article?
Three questions:


 * 1) Is there an official process for verifying the identity of an editor who asserts to be the subject of an article?
 * 2) If a person claims to be the subject of an article, are they afforded special privileges as far as verifying facts or introducing information about "themselves"?
 * 3) What if an editor who actually is the notable Wikipedian wants to introduce a fact about themself that is not published -- how would they go about doing that?

Thank you for helping! Joie de Vivre 16:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses
1
 * 1 I remember one of the mailinglists dealing with such requests after the subject had been blocked pending verification.
 * 2 No.
 * 3 He would get a reputable source publish it and then place the source on the talk page for others to include it.


 * Agathoclea 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2
 * Not sure.
 * COI.
 * Totally unverifiable without a reliable secondary source. Remove it per BLP.
 * Adrian  M. H.  17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

3
 * Read Autobiography, User:Uncle G/On sources and content, and Verifiability. Uncle G 18:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

4
 * 1. Even if we could identify the editor, it is not relevant to Wikipedia's policies: editors should not write about themselves, their families, their companies. Not only is it COI, but it is almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view.NPOV
 * 2. The editor would have no privileges not granted to any other editor.
 * 3. All facts must be verifiable. This is more important than that they also be true.
 * If this is a current problem, ask an admin for help. Bielle 19:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

5
 * 1. Yes, there is. This is particularly an issue when their username is the same as their real name, and it is someone who's well-known. The procedure is for them to contact OTRS. Most notable people these days have websites or blogs, and the identification may depend on the editor having access to those.
 * 2. No, just the opposite. Per WP:COI they are encouraged to avoid excess involvement in their own articles.
 * 3. Non-contentious facts about subjects may be sourced from the subject's own blog, etc. So a subject (or anyone else) may use such a self-published source for something like a birthdate or the name of a spouse.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

6. 1.  There is a policy, but it should not be used as an end-run around the editorial policy of not writing about oneself. Merely being notable (or famous) is not carte blanch to edit one's own wiki article or hold sway in a neutrality debate. 2. No. And it's often violated. Violations should be noted on the relevant talk page and on other community pages - I'm not yet sure exactly which ones, but certainly there are several places to report such activity. 3. Non-contentious to me, in addition to things like name of spouse or one's own birthday would include place of employment, universities and colleges attended, names of publications, and title of dissertations or works. All of these things are verifiable in theory by other records, and if a person is impersonating someone and it doesn't add up, presumably someone (probably the real person) will notice and correct. But, facts such as "is a good guitar player" or "can beat everyone at bridge" being inserted by oneself into an article about oneself, without sourcing, when one is not notable for those activities, but for something else, is wrong. An historian writing about himself, for example, should not say, "Is an expert at solitaire and renowned throughout Atlanta for the professionalism with which he grooms his dogs." (I made that up - but I'm seeing this kind of thing as I research biographies and they turn out to be autobiographies and not up to standards).Levalley (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

Related template
Relatedly, Template:Notable_Wikipedian may be added to article Talk pages. It adds the text:
 * "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, (full name), has edited Wikipedia as (Wikipedia username)."

Is there a verification process for applying this template to article Talk pages? Joie de Vivre 17:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest verifying identity by having them post their wikipedia username in a known external source, such as a blog or contact information section of their website, or having them send an email to OTRS from a known email address. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dylan Verrechia
Dylan Verrechia is listed as a notable Wikipedian, however all of this users edits are only related to articles that are about himself or his movie, if his user name is his actual name.XinJeisan 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MeadWestvaco
I'm not sure this is exactly the right place for it, but on Talk:MeadWestvaco, there's a user saying that an anonymous editor coming from that company's network has been turning the article into an ad. Jason McHuff 06:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

possible wikipedian with article I came upon by chance via Special:Random/User?
Hi. By going to the link above, I came upon a userpage who claims to be someone "famous". I typed the name in the adress bar and the person had an article. I'm not sure if it should be in the list, but can someone look into this? The user I came upon was User:MyD2.html. Could someone see if this user is actually the person he claims to be? I'm not sure even if the user is actually claiming to be that person. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Here's another one. This one I came upon after I posted on a wikipedian's talkpage, and they had a comment by User:JpGrB who claims to be Paul McCartney. So, could someone check, because I'm again not sure if this is a direct claim. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Keith Boykin
I'm pretty sure Keith Boykin has a username. I think it's KeithBoykin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.131.177 (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

why dont I have a wikipedia article?
What classifies someone as "notable enough" to have their own article? T.Neo (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You need independent verifiable references to see that you're notable. 124.185.46.168 (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Filipino comic book artists?
What's up with all the Filipino comic book artists? Why do we have such a disproportionately large number of comic book artists of that nationality? I was reading this list and must have seen half a dozen of them without even getting close to the end. 74.137.108.185 (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians
Is there anybody from The Wire on Wikipedia as a user? Creamy3 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sohail Inayatullah
Sohail Inayatullah has an account here. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added him. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible candidate: Brian Clevinger
I believe that is in fact Brian Clevinger. Kurosen is his screen name in his website's forums (his profile), his contributions match articles on fiction written by him, and his remarks on Talk:Brian Clevinger refer to himself.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible self edits
I made a list of biographies that have been edited by users who's names contain the last part of the subject's name. My script looked at all the last names starting with 'A', but it crashed near the start of 'B'. Output is at: User:Edward/Possible self edits

Edward (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Colbert
Oh, well, here we go. First of all, let's have a look at the video of Colbert "editing" Wikipedia. It starts around 1:00. Is anyone here going to argue that Colbert really did edit Wikipedia in that video, by randomly hitting the laptop keyboard without even looking at it? Seriously? That alone should clear things up, but just for argument's sake, let's have a look at the references provided: So in the end we have two (out of five) sources that actually claim what they are supposed to claim, and neither are the most reliable out there. But, as I said, that's pretty much irrelevant anyhow, just watch the damn video and see for yourself that he didn't make the edits. :) At least not during the video. Maybe he made the later, or earlier, or whatever, but we cannot know this, and when in doubt, don't list a person here. --Conti|✉ 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Newsvine: This one mentiones Colbert editing the encyclopedia, but it's a blog, so it's not exactly reliable per our standards.
 * MTV: "While he was speaking, Colbert was also typing away on a laptop computer, apparently editing the Wikipedia entry on George Washington" Note the word "apparently".
 * Columbus Dispatch: Mentions that Colbert made the edits, but I'm not sure how reliable this is. No author, and only one badly formatted paragraph makes me rather suspicious.
 * Chris Pirillo: A blog that simply cites the first source.
 * CNET: "And earlier this month, comedian Stephen Colbert was banned from Wikipedia after he encouraged his television viewers to make meaningless edits to the site's articles." Not a single mention of Colbert editing anything.
 * What's more is that Wikiality claims he the middle initial of Warren G. Harding to "Gangster" but the edit came from a Cogeco (Canadian cable internet provider) address. Very dubious indeed. –xeno talk 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible candidate
I suspect that User_talk:Kingbk is Barry Kemp (TV producer), just based on his edit history.Jarhed (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Arudou Debito
Arudou Debito long ago confirmed that his account here on Wikipedia is actually his. I'm afraid of messing up the formatting on the page, but can someone add him to the list? Thank you. 210.253.243.157 (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

split up by activity?
It would be useful to indicate activity on the page, just as creating the page indicates a nonzero activity. +sj + 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Zarah Garde-Wilson
I'm not sure how a user provides evidence of their identity but I have asked the user User:Zarahgarde about her | edits of a the article similar to her user name. Earlypsychosis (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer?
Shouldn't there be some kind of disclaimer stating something along the lines of "These users may or may not be said person, in most cases further verification is required"? -- &oelig; &trade; 14:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Userbox for Wikipedians with articles
I don't know if any Wikipedian who has an article would want to refer to it on his/her userpage, but just in case they do, I have created a userbox just for that situation. — Michael J 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Request edit: Alex Konanykhin
Hi. Could we add:
 * Alex Konanykhin –

to Wikipedians_with_articles? I'm not sure what to say for the description text, any suggestions? Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! Woz2 (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale
This page is very stale. Is it still maintained? Or should it be marked historic? A number of people are marked as "no longer active", yet others, who have noted edited in years, are not so tagged. I have requested a bot to fix that. But that won't help where more recent additions have not been made.

I also think the page could usefully be divided into "editors who edit about themselves or a related issue", and "real" Wikipedians (however that might be better phrased), who are here to build the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a really bad idea, to divide the list into "good" contributors and "bad" ones. Very bad idea.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of ADMIN section
Why would anyone object to hi-liting wiki-admins who also have wiki-articles about them? The admin's themselves surely don't have a problem with it? XOttawahitech (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * all of those people already exist - thus it's duplicative. Additionally there are many roles here, not just admin, and no reason to highlight them specially. We could add a tag after each user that pulls in their current role from the server that way it would always be up to date.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not understand what your objection is. It is inconceivable to me how anyone with Wikipedia’s best interests at heart would object to making the editing environment less opaque. Wiki-admins have the means to delete articles/block other editors — surely advertising who has these abilities can’t be bad thing from a wp:COI point of  view? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Throws his hat* The reasoning for not having an admin specific section is purely an editorial and upkeep one. For those who put some work into this list, having two separate lists begs the question of why make all the extra work? And if we go this far, why not separate them out into users who have been caught editing their own articles? How about those who edited once and left? The point is, adding a specific section for admins feels like a slippery slope and difficult to maintain. Zero Serenity (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I concur - it leads to dual maintenance, since these people are already in the list in alphabetical order. More importantly, it highlights one particular user group, at the expense of others. Why not rollbackers, or bureaucrats, or stewards? Why not members of arbcom? Look at all of the possible permissions here User_access_levels - I see no reason to privilege one particular class of users. Now, one thing we could do, which would be perfectly reasonable, would be to add something similar to Userrights to each entry - or just replace the User one with one which gives more links - including a link to userrights - then anyone, with one click, could determine which rights a particular editor has. Even better would be to find a template that actually transcludes to this page the live "rights" for each person (vs making you click a link), I just don't know if one exists (I've just asked at the village pump).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Roger Ailes
Came across this one while cleaning up citation errors. Roger Ailes is the President of Fox News Channel in the US. There are a number of clearly WP:POV edits (primarily content blanking, for which the editor was eventually blocked for a while) coming from. There may be a coincidence in the last name, I suppose. But I kind of doubt it, which would lead to WP:COI. Note also that the editor has only made edits to the Roger Ailes page. Do we add Roger Ailes / to the list?

As a side note, I'm finding that a pile of malformed citation templates arriving at the same time in an article is often a way to find people editing their own page - as newbies to wikicode, they probably don't know how to form the citations correctly and they'll trigger a bunch of CS1 errors. - Stamptrader (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Do we add Roger Ailes to the list?" It seems to me better confirmation is needed. Maybe start by asking Djzailes101 if he/she is ROger Ailes, and email Roger Ailes and ask if he/she is Djzailes101, perhaps? GangofOne (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The rules, if any
Is it expected/required that Wikipedians with articles be listed here? It has come to my attention from the non-Wikipedia internet that person I will call XXX, who has a Wikipedia page about XXX, is an editor editing under pseudonym I will call YYY. The claim is that XXX is a POV pusher. Others say s/he is correct. Are Wikipedians required to declare themselves if there is an aritcle about them? How should this be handled? (I am aware of rule against "outing" a pseudonymous editor, so I don't.) GangofOne (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sasha Velour
I'm not exactly sure how we confirm whether or not user names belong to a notable individual, or if some random person is just using their name, but should we add User:Sashavelour, who contributed to the Sasha Velour article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Should deceased Wikipedians with articles be listed here
Hello. I am asking about what is the inclusion criteria of this list: only living Wikipedians with articles should be listed here, or all? I am asking this because I have discovered that Jory Prum who had an untimely death in 2016, was a Wikipedian: User:Jory. Thank you in advance for your input. Al83tito (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and added him to the list. Please feel free to weigh in at any time. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Closing this is the only way I'll ever appear in this article. Red  Slash  03:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles → Notable people who have edited Wikipedia – Many on this list have made few edits or even just one, often to their own biography (examples 1, 2, 3). Calling someone who made one edit 10 years ago a "Wikipedian" is misleading: you wouldn't call someone who smoked one cigarette 10 years ago a "smoker". In addition, in the spirit of WP:BLPCAT, we should avoid labelling someone a "Wikipedian" when we have no reason to believe they would identify as such. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support, per WP:BEANS. The present title implies that editors should seek having "their WP:OWN" articles and that it's a badge of honor. And I also agree with the nom's arguments, though I don't find it the most compelling reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - more accurate and neutral title.--Staberinde (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. buidhe 17:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Red links
There are several red-linked names (not usernames) in the list. Should these be removed? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Sadly, if their articles were deleted, then it was probably at AFD due to lack of notability. The title of the article is "notable" people who have edited Wikipedia. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – It seems that every red link in this list stems from a deleted article. I suspect this list escaped the usual clean-up after the deletion of an article only because it's it's not in Wikipedia's main article space. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

✅ --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)