Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. Acalamari 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] User:Betacommand/Edit count

The page is not a valid use of a user sub-page per WP:USER, the page is a duplicate of pages already in wikispace, the page owner actively opposes the request for anonymity process already established for the similar pages already in wikispace MickMacNee (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep The only part of WP:USER that this could be accused of violating is releasing personal information and I hardly think that one's edit count is personal information. Also, while it would be nice if Betacommand allowed people to put in placeholders for their names, he does not need to do so. This page is also not a duplicate of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits as Betacommand's page is an update of the official page. The update has been not been enacted yet due to concerns over the lack of placeholders and counting bots as normal users. I see no reason to delete. Captain panda 04:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:USER disallows pages that highlight perceived flaws in users, i.e. stats that can be used to judge or dismiss a user based on edits. This is dealt with in the wikispace by allowing anonymity. Betacommand's user page prevents this and therefore violates USER by hosting information that causes disruption. Both lists include bots, if an update of the wikispace is required from this info, it should be done, the conditions under which that page operates are quite clear at present, and are not changed by keeping an alternate version in user space. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • One's edit count is not secret or personal information. Knowing one's edit count does not remove their anonymity. It is not a breach of privacy to known somebody's edit count. Knowing someone's edit count does not "highlight perceived flaws in users." It is a user's own fault if he or she makes silly judgments based on edit count. Betacommand is not responsible for someone's opinions about edit count. I think the problem you are highlighting is more a problem with users who pay too much attention to edit count than Betacommand's page. Captain panda 14:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The part of WP:USER you seem to have glanced over is
While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia.
Please tell me how this is not relevant. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason that Betacommand's page does not violate this is that section of the guideline is explaining about articles. The purpose of that section of the guideline is to prevent someone from recreating a deleted article in his or her userspace or having a preferred version of an article in a content dispute in his or her userspace. The part, "indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia" shows that this is for article-space cases only. In any case, no concensus has been provided to delete the main edit count list page. This part of the guideline was most definately not designed for it to be used in a dispute involving part of the Wikipedia space. It really doesn't look like it applies in this case. Captain panda 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not violate any policy. People do not own their contributions, and if someone wants to count your edits then they can do that. This is in the user space and if people don't want to look at it they can look away. This is simply raw facts, without interpretation. There is no judgment being made, and it cannot reasonably be seen as an offense. "Requests for anonymity" is really confusing to me, as I think everyone on that list knows that their contribs are recorded for all to see, we have a transparent system. 1 != 2 04:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If you don't think this page is used as a tool for judgement, then what is it used for? And why must it be kept in user space and not in the already established place in wikipedia? Or do you advocate duplication wherever and whenever? Without any plausible explanation of why this information needs to be kept here beyond 'you can't delete it', it is hard to see why it needs to be kept here, it's as simple as that, this isnt a case of protection of beta's free speech, he needs to demonstrate a purpose for this page, and a reason for its location, especially as it is causing disruption, and wheel wars between admins no less (actually, beta as non-admin is re-creating a page deleted by 2 admins so far). MickMacNee (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It is used to compare edits to usernames, what else would it be used for? Not everything belongs in Wikispace as has been demonstrated in the past, userspace is often a better place. Once again, no disruption has been demonstrated. Also, no wheel warring either, just two out of process deletions that the community overturned as, well out of process. 1 != 2 13:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: And stop complaining about it, preferably. It is in his userpace and does not violate any policies. The "people don't want their name on the list" argument is ridiculous, as this information (edit count) isn't secret or private. It is public, and accessible by anybody who wants to check it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So why make a list of it in personal user space? And why edit war over it? It can be found elsewhere, but that requires a specific effort with a specific purpose, when you really do commit to why you want to know it. So give me a concrete reason why it should exist here then at the touch of a button? You blithely dismiss at least 30 users with your comments here, but your defence of beta is predictable if not understandable very often. MickMacNee (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't have to give you reasons for anything. You will probably argue anything that I could possibly say. I've stated my opinion here, and now am done commenting here. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course you don't have to explain anything. Infact this only makes your position clearer. 05:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Until 1==2's and Rjd0060's arguments above. I don't understand what the big deal is. Edit counts are transparent and public information. If you don't like it don't look at it. The disruption, if any, is being caused by out-of-process deletions and MfD nominations that don't seem to have any basis in policy. Kelly hi! 04:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and admonish those admins who speedy deleted it against policy and basic common sense. The page does not violate policy in any way, and anybody can collect this information. We have stats on numerous aspect of Wikipedia, and this is no different. To claim this is a violation of privacy or an attack of any kind is absurd. I could not agree more with Kelly's statement "The disruption, if any, is being caused by out-of-process deletions and MfD nominations that don't seem to have any basis in policy". - auburnpilot talk 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This Mfd is in response to out of process deletions, which were in response to edit warring, which was in response to a perceived violation of at least 30 users' wishes per previously accepted norms. Seriously, what is the problem here in even accepting there is a problem, let alone attempting to analyse it? The policy reasons are stated above, which nobody has even addressed as yet. I am equally mystified at the insistence in keeping a page whose existence no-one has yet even attempted to justify, beyond 'it is, therefore it is, so don't look at it'. Of course the issue everyone is dancing around, is that we know exactly what the purpose of the page is, and hence why it has previously been kept in wikispace, and not user space. So, anytime someone wants to come to the table with a substantive argument for keeping it here rather than there, inside the accepted practice, feel free. Otherwise it just reads as another free reign for betacommand to annoy people while he waits out his 30 day bot restriction. MickMacNee (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • We are all well aware of your opinion of Betacommand, so feel free to skip over that. To address the policy issues, it is not a violation of WP:USER as you claim, it is not a duplicate of another page, as Beta has pointed out, and edit count cannot in anyway be considered a violation of somebody's anonymity. It's a number that is readily available to anyone who wants it, through the use of dozens of scripts or a long boring day of counting fingers and toes. What I have yet to see is a single argument based on an accurate use of policy, as for why this should be deleted. Why? Because it doesn't violate policy in any way. - auburnpilot talk 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • See above for USER violations, it is perjorative, actively disruptive, and not established as yet as being helpfull to the project. This is all in the policy. It is a duplicate, ignoring the fact that it is more up to date (so do an update...). It is no surprise, but no one has yet realised I was not even nominating on grounds of WP:U/privacy, but it should be recognised by beta and others that there is a pre-existing arrangement, to which 30 users have signed up to in good faith, and if this situation is to be changed, you do it the right way, not the wrong way. But of course, it being beta's user space should have no bearing on anyone's opinion of which way this has gone so far. MickMacNee (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not understanding this - can you give an example of how someone is harmed by being included in this list? Kelly hi! 06:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You'd have to ask any of the 31 users who have requested anonymity why they want it. I can only relate my personal experience of having beta throw the my editcount/your editcount bone into a discussion with me, and only now realising where he gets his obsession for such figures from (not that I either believed they were correct or took any notice of them anyway, but you see the point). As has been said, there's nothing to stop you using an edit counter to gain the same info about someone for the same purpose, but at least that gives you pause to actually think about why you are doing it. MickMacNee (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] arbitrary section break at User:Betacommand/Edit count 1
  • Adjourn for tea and biscuts. Looking in on this, I think that the issue goes far beyond this page, and there's not gonna be a fruitful or fair discussion on it (particularly in light of the recent DRV). Though I doubt anyone is going to listen to me, I would suggest closing this, for a few days at least, while people calm down, and then perhaps getting together and trying to work out the -real- issues involved, like how much privacy you can expect while working on Wikipedia and whether or not you can withdraw from lists drawn from public records (and yes, I saw the old MFD, it didn't appear to resolve anything). Personally, I don't see the big deal. Edit count is a largely useless number, but if it means something to someone, then more power to them. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing a valid rationale for deletion at this point. WP:USER doesn't apply: this page is not "substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia", a "statement of violence", "material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute", "non-free images" or a copy of another page. Contributor Betacommand is well-established and the page is small and doesn't consume great space. Editor MickMacNee has stated that the list was created by Betacommand "to annoy people while he waits out his 30 day bot restriction." Courtesy and good faith still count for a lot, and I need more evidence of malice before I'll delete something from a regular contributor's userspace. Further, someone who harbors feelings that strong about the user in question simply should not have nominated the user's page for deletion in the first place: those sorts of bad-faith nominations create a feeling of bad blood and hostility inimical to the health of the project. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I was merely the first user to notice it had been re-created following several deletions, and several separate independant calls to Mfd the page. I did not say it was created for the purpose you attribute above, merely that the lack of any concrete reason to keep suggests that beta has carte blanche to spend the time he has been given to prove he is a valuable editor without a bot, to work on a list that has been the source of aggravation to a number of editors for months. Not only that, but actively accuse people with justified grievances about it of being vandals, for attempting to align one of his user pages with a pre-existing wiki page, where the page should reside anyway. If tolerating that does not engender an atmosphere of ill-health, I don't know what does. MickMacNee (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand, MickMacNee. You've made comments like "Classic Beta"..."Beta has no idea what is even wrong with that reply, and never will." It's clear you have bad feelings toward Betacommand; why on earth would you nominate his page for deletion? It seems in poor taste at best, and a disturbance at worst. I don't think you'd find me nominating a user's page for deletion when I'd had a very recent disagreement with him/her, and I can't imagine why you'd do so. It just promotes bad blood on the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
See above and below for why this reasoning is wrong. Do not attack the nominator, but address the nomination, which is a valid one. And frankly, if you actually have 3 days to go through the history, you would be persuaded the above comment is a perfectly valid observation. The problem with wikipedia is that there are far too few people watching beta (or more correctly, willing to act on him), not too many. I did not go 'digging' around for this page, the drama lept right out at me. So, I say again, yours and others diversion of the debate away from the arguments towards the nominator, and providing very weak reasons for keeping, are not at all appropriate. I've said elsewhere, just give me a concrete reason why this duplicated and disruptive page should exist here, which is a requirement of WP:USER. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with that sentiment - it's a bad idea to go digging through the userpages of someone with whom you're in a disagreement, looking for something to complain about. I'd suggest not interacting with Betacommand for a while. Kelly hi! 07:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair to Mick, while he has been in his scrapes with Beta before, this MFD is a result of Mukadderrat's wish to be taken off the list. The chain started here, and it's made it's way past 3 speedy deletions by 2 admins and a DRV. Mick's just follwing the community's will of the DRV.--72.89.93.74 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
72, I'd call the run-ins between these two more than just "scrapes". I was quite surprised this morning to see active fighting between these two on WP:AN which hasn't even been archived yet. Based just on these diffs, it seems to have become a personal grudge. Diffs such as "I propose a dedicated page be created to actualy list the facts behind betacommand's mistakes, every bot mistake, every example of (spectacular) incivility, every example of a lack of cooperation, every mistake by sock." and an amazing 32 other similar comments after that one, some made just hours before this MFD was nominated, strongly indicate that someone other than Mick should have been the one to nominate this article for MFD. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I repeat if you have 3 days I can take you through exaclty why every one of my comments about beta are justified. He has many many times cried harassment and trolling, with quite rightly no result, because there are enough people that, unlike yourself, know the truth. The suggestion above is exactly for the benefit of the likes of yourself, because it becomes tiresome to have to repeatedly show every newcomer what the failures and shortcomings of beta actually are. And again, there were many prior independant calls for an Mfd, so I'm sure that even if this were closed right now, it would be immediately re-listed, so the point is moot, this was not a unilateral nomination out of a grudge. So, once again, address the nomination not the nominator. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt that MickMacNee would have nominated this page for deletion if anyone other then Beta had created it. The sound of axes grinding and agendas being sharpened is deafening here. I echo Firstron and kelly here. This is related to deeper personality issues then a page. Perhaps we should just block both beta nad MickMacNee and be done with it. Oh and close this bad faith nomination... Spartaz Humbug! 13:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] arbitrary section break at User:Betacommand/Edit count 2
  • Delete I'm one of the admins who deleted the page. I thing we need to agree on a few points here:
(a) As was made clear in the MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (second nomination) and on the talk page of the original list on the talk page of the original list , there is a consensus in place that editors who do not want their name on the list can remove their name.
(b) It actually took quite a bit of bickering and drama to arrive at the above compromise.
(c) The list of BetaCommand is redundant to the original list.
(d) BetaCommand has agressively reverted any attempt to use placeholders on his version of the list. To make sure people understand this, I've restored deleted versions of the page. See for instance [1].

There is no way to view BC's list as anything but a way of disregarding the wishes of editors who do not want their name on the list. Captain Panda says "oh but it's not a duplicate because it's up to date". Fine. Last I heard, BetaCommand is a programmer so it wouldn't exactly be hard for him to take this list, put in placeholders (using the convenient list Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous) and copy that to the original list. I'd also like to point out that a number of people arguing here for keep fought the placeholder solution in previous debates. That is of course their prerogative but you cannot sit here with a straight face and argue that the consensus on placeholders is a stupid idea anyway. There's a consensus. If you want to revive the placeholder debate, use the talk page of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, don't flaunt it by going to user space. I would not be allowed to recreate in my userspace the infamous GNAA article just for the heck of it. Userspace is not a place where one can disregard what the community has agreed to. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete for not respecting other people wishes unless Beta makes a way for users who wish to remain anonymous to not appear on the list. Either adopt Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/Anonymous or create a similar solution so users can add themselves to the list. That's about the only thing that violates WP:USER. Only that condition is met, it should be kept. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:OWN, people do not get to control how their contributions are used. No other reason has really been given. Some people think I am disrespecting them if I don't take my hat off when I walk into the room, that does not make it so. 1 != 2 16:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the one that appears to be having WP:OWN problems is BC, by making his own list at userspace because he doesn't agree with how Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits is handled, and refusing to change his list after all the disruption he is causing with other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry but I prefer to have more data and more accuracy. when replacing names with User:Place holder it invalidates the stats. User:Place holder has a total of 2 edits. placing that anywhere else makes the stats unreliable and invalidates them. As I have said there are a key differences between WP:WBE and the stats that I provide. Im sorry but I want accurate information, not some biased un-usable list that only provides the top 4000 users. βcommand 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dude.... just use the words "placeholder1" "placeholder2", etc, instead of User:Place holder and report the correct number of edits for those names on the correct place of the list. I think that just removing the name will be enough, no need to not report the number of edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
For people that want that it is already available. This is a more complete list that is not bowdlerized. 1 != 2 13:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - there's no reason for it to be deleted, and I think it's more helpful than the current list (which is outdated). Deleting it solely because Beta won't remove people from the list is punitive, to say the least. Sceptre (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The MfD can be kept open until Beta implements the mechanism for removing oneself from the list --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There's no good reason not to follow the accepted practice of updating the current list in it's current wikispace location. Ignoring everything else, where's the logic in having various versions of the list at various stages of update in different locations around userspace? MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • MickMacNee this is your final warning about wikistalking, stop. this list has a few key differences from WP:WBE. WPE is a list of of the top 4000 users, and omits bots from the count that it provides, thus skewing data. what I provide is a list of users who have at least 5000 edits. this page has been around for over six months without any issues. Please remember that all edits made by all users is released under the GDFL. providing accurate, unbiased, un-tainted statics is well within the rights of any wikipedian see WP:ADMINSTATS for another example of stats. βcommand 14:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I guess you forgot to point out that WP:ADMINSTATS also respects the wishes of those who want to opt-out... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • These are not key differences, both lists contain bots (as has been pointed out to you many times without acknowledgement or reply), the bottom user on the main list has 5659 edits, you go down to 5000, so what?. Absolutely not a significant difference, and if it is, update WBE with your list. And as an aside, just give a valid reason for providing these stats here and not on wikispace (if necessary as a different list version), beyond being able to eit war over it so you can use it for quick access to editcounts to judge users (who don't want to be included), as you have done before. Why are you so intransigent to the wishes of others in the community? Why are you so determined to never to accept any practice the commmunity adopts when it doesn't suit you? MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Sceptre: are you saying that requesting BetaCommand to abide by the consensus placeholder solution is punitive? I don't want to punish BetaCommand, I just want to make sure he respects the community's wishes and it's pretty clear that the community's wish is to use that solution. People see MickMacNee as the nominator and they automatically view this as an anti-BetaCommand crusade. Mick has his reasons and I won't speculate about them, but I have no intention whatsoever of punishing anyone here. I just want to make sure userspace isn't used to circumvent existing consensus. I am disappointed that nobody is addressing these two questions. Does the placeholder solution represent consensus? Is BetaCommand's list abiding by that consensus? I think the answers are yes and no respectively. If you agree then surely the page is unacceptable. If you disagree, please do let me know why. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • As the only reason for deletion, yes. I think the use of Place holder on the main list is a courtesy only, not something that's absolutely required (the data is indeed public). It would be nice for Beta to remove the names of the placeholder account, but he's not bound to. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - though I don't really understand the position of people who don't want anyone to know their edit counts, the arguments made about that seemed to apply to WP:EDITS, a pretty highly visible projectspace page with shortcuts and incoming links to it. I'm not seeing how that translates to a page in userspace - if it weren't for all the dramahz about the page which calls attention to it, how would your average user even find Betacommand's page. He's stated that the page is not redundant to WP:EDITS (it clearly has differences), it apparently has some utility to him, so why all the foofora about the page? I'm beginning to think that Betacommand has a valid point about wikistalking here; as someone mentioned above, I think I hear the sound of axes grinding. Kelly hi! 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
For one thing, BC advertised it on the talk page of the original list. Most disconcerting to me is that he edit warred over people wanting to remove their names. Like I said earlier, BC is a competent programmer so using placeholders would cost him 0 effort. But he doesn't like placeholders... Nevermind why some people want their names off the list, the fact is we've agreed to respect their wishes. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It is redundant to the main list, see above, the differences are minor, and if necessary it can be ported to the edit count project. And you think he has a use for it, well what is it? No one has stated what it is, and why it necessitates disruption, which is needed (and not needed) for anything that is kept in USER. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] arbitrary section break at User:Betacommand/Edit count 3
  • Keep. Can't we just all get along? Seriously? Betacommand should respect the wishes of people who don't want to be included in the list, for whatever silly reasons, and others should respect that their edit count is nothing special whatsoever, and that they don't have a right to edit war over it. --Conti|✉ 15:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But since BC doesn't respect these wishes, what solution do you propose? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And Pascal, Beta is perfectly within policy to create a list with the full information available. This odd belief that a consensus on one list automatically applies to all other lists is more than off-the-mark; it's wrong. The lists are distinct and different, and WP:USER allows such pages. Nobody has a right to remove their name from a list of statistics that are readily available to anyone. Would it be nice of Beta to do it? Sure. Must he? No. - auburnpilot talk 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If the list has a distinct content, put it in Wikipedia space. Why is this not being done? Because BC doesn't want to use placeholders. The argument about placeholders has been beaten to death and it's a courtesy that we've agreed to implement. What I see in this debate is a lot of "the placeholder solution sucks". Well, discuss that in the right forum, don't create a parallel list to ignore the consensus. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • They are not different in any significant way, of course consensus applies. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, just let Beta be a dick, if he really wants to be one. This issue is so not worth fighting over. --Conti|✉ 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think aggregating statistics is dickish at all, but resorting to ad hominem attacks is. 1 != 2 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • You're right, and I wouldn't call Beta a dick for creating the list. But calling the edits made to his list vandalism [2] [3] just isn't.. nice, to use a polite word. --Conti|✉ 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Granted. 1 != 2 16:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • These two positions are not reconcileable, if you don't have a right to change it, your wishes are not being respected. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I wish I could get paid for editing Wikipedia, that wish is not being respected either. Probably because it is an unreasonable wish that I don't have any entitlement to. 1 != 2 16:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • What has this got to do with anything? I'm highlighting the fact Conti's post is contradicting itself, and cannot be met. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, how much forum-shopping is being done on this? A quick look shows the avenues attempted include WP:AN, speedy deletion, Betacommand's talk page, deletion review, and now this. When this doesn't result in deletion (it clearly won't), what forum is next? Drop it already. Kelly hi! 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • AN was a mere side comment, 3RR was probably not the right venue but was helpfull to highlight some of the other involved party's views, speedy deletion was done out of process (if you ignore IAR in the case of disruption), beta has hardly replied on his talk page (where he incorrectly applies notcensored to user space, and misrepresents the Drv), the drv was just to overturn the out of process speedy, so here we are, the first proper and appropriate forum to discuss the issue of this lists existence in user space. This is not forum shopping by any definition I am aware of. Your 'drop it already' stance would work so much better if you and others actually made any arguments on the subject, i.e. factual and policy reasons why this should be kept, to counter the ones made for deletion. Miring a deletion discussion with these irrelevances is just as disruptive as forum shopping. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This has been going on a while, but I do think this MfD will put it to rest. 1 != 2 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe I did those make arguments above. Looking through the other forums, your comments in regard to Betacommand frankly seem a little obsessive and/or fanatical and my frank advice is that you walk away and avoid interacting with him in the future. Kelly hi! 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Yet again with the sidestep to the nominator not the nomination. What were these arguments, because I simply don't see them. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • hes been topic banned from my talkpage already for disruptive editing and wikistalking. βcommand 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • For a completely unrelated matter, which I am sure you do not want anyone to know the fine details of, understandably. But a few selected highlights from that discussion: "prove that I am not using a polydimensional program design or shut the fuck up" (no one has heard of this polydimensional programming, and no one understood it when he eventually tried to explain it), "I am very busy and I dont have the time to waste on some points idea", "I am not going to implement it, end of story." (in response to a request for change from the last arbitration)". And from the admin who eventually ended the discussion for beta: "You run the very real risk of also being blocked however if you continue to attack users as you've done above. Your abrasive attitude is one of the main reason's that we have endless amounts of trouble and I hope that you will work on being far less abrasive when interacting with other users". MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page obviously doesn't reveal any personal, private, or confidential information. Editors' edit counts are widely and readily available; see Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters. Moreover, the full contents of every editors' edits is easily accessible. Editors regularly put all sorts of commentary and narrative about Wikipedia processes, editors, statistics, etc. in their user spaces; this is no different. Why is this horse being beaten? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Privacy is not the reason for nomination, which has been stated above already. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see any reason given on this page at all for deletion other than "I don't want it there", which is not really a reason. Any argument about being "anonymous" makes no sense as this information is public. No privacy issue, no issue of abuse, no issue at all that I can see. 1 != 2 20:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's been stated repeatedly, causing disruption, replicating information, ignoring a community accepted approach to edit count lists, and actually having no defined purpose (accepting that they are allowed in wikispace where the community can administer them, and ultimately decide their usefullness - resolution of an Mfd of that page is exactly how the anonymity function was arrived at). All the people voting keep on here who have no issue about privacy can go and argue their case out on the page that already implements it (as said above I don't care because I know they are meaningless), but to sneakily circumvent this approach by endorsing the replication of the list in user space is simply a slap in the face to the accepted way the community operates, by debate and consensus. But anyway, there comes a stage when you get the feeling that people are willfully ignoring these reasons so that they do not have to be addressed. MickMacNee (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Nothing sneaky here, big open discussion and people support its existence. The defined purpose is to provide the statistics to interested parties. No disruption has been demonstrated, no community consensus has opposed these statistics in userspace. And most importantly nobody has explained why this information is harmful in any way. 1 != 2 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • With these statments you've basically completely ignored the entire information presented at this page, as you contradict the evidence right here, every point is opposed by a link on this page. Yet you're going on about biased nominations and veiws. And if you want put bold statements in, just reverse the sentence you've written and try and answer it, as it seems beyond anyone on here. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I see lots of "I don't want this", but very little "This is why I don't want this". 1 != 2 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, basically not true. Read the page very carefully. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Your just repeating yourself, it could be that you see things I don't. I have read this page more than a couple times. If there is a real argument against this page other than "I don't like it" then I don't see it and I would love to hear it, and I mean actually tell me not just say it is out there somewhere. 1 != 2 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it's public information, a valid use of a userpage. If you don't care about your edit count... then you shouldn't care about this page. --Rividian (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So any public information is a vald use of a talk page? It isn't, for the reasons repeated many times already. Caring about your edit count has nothing to do with it, duplication of information, disruptively owning and editing it, and completely ignoring commmunity consensus does. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If people truly didn't care about their edit count they wouldn't need to grandstand to try to prevent their names from appearing in such lists. I don't buy that consensus is against such lists... just look at this MFD. The main reason people got their way about the old list is stunts like Mikkalai promising to continue reverting and wheel warring until he was de-adminned to get his way on that list... and no one really felt like getting speedy de-adminned along with him over such a silly issue, so they "gave the baby his bottle". --Rividian (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless Betacommand wants it deleted. By signing your post any where Wikipedia gives out far more information that whats contained on that page. Solution seems easily resolved for those who have issue with edit counts, stop editing. --Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keeping wikipedia-related statistics is a reasonable use of userspace. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Even when already specifically present and catered for in wikispace? What precisely is the point of that? MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The one in wikispace is incomplete. The point is that this one is not. 1 != 2 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Correction, this one is more complete. 1 != 2 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Wrong again, unless you think it's perfectly OK to ignore the fact there is an established update procedure for the wikispace list. How about someone else takes this list into their user space, and updates for it todays figures, etc etc etc. Why the incessant ignorance of the adopted procedures of the wikispace page? You would actually have a case if it didn't exist, because this nomination is about duplication and disruption, not privacy or not being allowed to collect statistics, but ignoring these facts is just a recurring theme on this page. I find it incredible that you posit that this is the appropriate place to have the anonyminty discussion (or rather end run it), when it is also duplicated and pre-dated in the sensible place you would expect it to be, as it has been since last year at least. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • None of what you said contradicts my statement that this version is more complete than the other, and thus has a use beyond the community list. What anonymity are you talking about? How is this any issue with anonymity??? What is the harm of this page, it still has not been made clear to me. 1 != 2 22:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I am assuming by more complete you mean more up to date, because there are no other significant differences. If the harm hasn't been made clear by now, after the links and repeated explanations on this entire page, then there's a problem somewhere. The point is being made elsewhere this Mfd is now the replacement discussion venue for the issue of whether placeholders is accepted for these lists or not. And on the opposite side which you ignored, please can you demonstrate the usefulness to the community of this list being here, when a more logical location exists, as is also required by USER. MickMacNee (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • More complete as in it has a) more entries, and b) it includes names that in the other list have been bowdlerized. 1 != 2 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • (To Mick) I have no idea why you are assuming malice about Beta's page, when he has provided perfectly adequate reasoning for why he created it. If it were anyone else's page, I doubt such a fuss would have been made. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
              • this page has key differences, WP:WBE is the top 4,000 users by edit count. the list I created is a list of all users with at least 5,000 edits. this has been around for many many months without issue. βcommand 2 22:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
                • See above, I'm not repeating the reason already given why this is a non-justification for the existence of this list. MickMacNee (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
            • How am I assuming malice? MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You keep asserting that this was created to "cause disruption", that beta did this to "sneakily circumvent" and that the list is "simply a slap in the face to the accepted way the community operate". Clearly you've lost the ability to assume good faith where beta is concerned, so is it wise to edit in an area related to him? Cause I'm not seeing sneaky disruption. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I said it was causing disruption (see the various links), against WP:USER, not that it was "created to cause disruption". Maybe its not a sneaky circumvention, it is actualy quite a bold circumvention, as he is perfectly aware of the wikispace arrangments, just look at the links for the past discussion references. I can only conclude the people not understanding this are not aware of the wikispace list, how it works, and how it has been discussed for years, and how beta's list duplicates it, but ignores an agreed component of anonymity where users request it. He actually posted in the wikispace talk page to say he'd updated the list, linking to it, so there is an obvious recognition there from him that he had forked it into user space, without any significant differences. "Sneaky disruption" as you put it is merely a re-invention and recombination of what I actually said. MickMacNee (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Is not against policy; this page is more complete than the WP space one, seems a valid use of userspace. Before all of this flared up, it went by unnoticed. It seems to have been started as part of a bad-faith campaign. If there were problems with this list, they should have been brought up by someone other than MickMacNee. Woody (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Define more complete, and if so (which it isn't, just more up to date), why keep it here and not update the wikispace page? The obvious conclusion is to delete the wikispace page then, as beta is now the official list, as updating the existing list, as has been done repeatedly before, is seemingly such a bizarre concept. MickMacNee (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It has been defined far too many times to even bother finding a diff for you. Beta is not the official list, he simply maintains his own, different list. Why are you so persistent in this, why are you so belligerent? Woody (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Beta's list goes down to 5,000 edits, the main to 5,700. Both contain bots. Bata's is a single more up to date version, the other has been updated many times previously. Absolutely not 'more complete' in any practical sense (is 5000-5700 an important time in a wikipedians life?). It should not be beyond the imagination what the logical next step should be, update the main list from this one, even adopt Beta's model if, as it just must be, better (for what?) instead of forking copies all over the place, with different arrangements for each one. Beta actually has a history of adopting his own methods when he decides the community one is wrong in his view, the bots opt out system comes to mind. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • and that is your problem, you dont understand the differences. WP:WBE contains only the top 4,000 users. while the list that I have contains over 5,000 users and is growing. WP:WBE will always have the 4,000 user limit, while the cutoff for the list I keep is users with a minimum of 5,000 edits. if you cannot see the major differences you should not be commenting on this MfD. βcommand 2 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The difference is obvious, and as of now, no big deal for showing a list of users by edit, hence why insisting there is a huge difference between them is practicaly meaningless, and a diversion for the sake of diversion. But presumably there is a long rationale behind the different approach, and what you hope to do with it, and why it can't be done in wikispace, you just haven't got round to writing that part of the page yet. In fact no one has explained the use of this information at all, in whatever format. So yes, what I don't see is why you wouldn't change or supplement the wikispace list system explaining your wisdom behind it, instead of choosing to insist on setting up a different location, as a bare table, and warring over it annoying other users in the process. I mean, it's not a space issue obviously, so what then? Is there a magic property about user 4000 that affects wikispace but not your user space? MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
              • thanks for showing you have zero clue about what your talking about. the wikispace has a limit of 4,000 users, to be on that list you have to be in the top 4,000 users. (a status symbol). while the list that I maintain is a list of all user with over 5,000 edits. right now that is over 5000, in a few weeks it could be over 6,000. unlike the wikispace which limits it to 4,000 users. βcommand 2 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                • What makes you think from the above post that I don't understand that? The point being, why not change the wikispace table, or augment it with your list. It's a wiki, the 4000 limit is not set in stone as a 'status symbol' by the wiki leaders, put your case to change it and get it changed, or be bold and change it anyway, or simply add your list to the project if it's realy necessary to duplicate the list from names 1 to 4000, and the actual list of names is adding something more to the project than just being a running total of how many post 5000 edit editors there are currently. You are acting as if this is really complicated, it so isnt. And it's certainly not complicated enough to jealously protect a version in user space, that has zero accompanying information, and annoy a large number of editors in the process. I forgot the point edit you made to it as well by adding an inline reference to one entry. That was real cute. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Mick, you are making the same arguments over and over again on this page. It is frankly disruptive. I think you can assume that people commenting have read your arguments and considered them. Please stop restating them endlessly. Kelly hi! 23:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Mick, the obvious solution is to keep this page and let the other one exist too. And this is pretty much what is going to happen. 1 != 2 22:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • An unnecessary duplication, that upsets a significant number of editors who have participated in good faith in implementing arrangements at the main list. Tantamount to: just let him do it, hang the other users. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Significant number of editors? Look at this MfD, the vast majority of editors see no problem at all with this page. Tantamount to nothing other than the decision to keep the page. Your arguments seem to be more based on your point of view than consensus. 1 != 2 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Hey, look at this - Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous (I helpfully included it in the nomination, that no one seems to have read). I'm not concerned if consensus deems that it is fine to cause disruption in user space, duplicate information already held, described and developed in wikispace, and ignore the discussion pages in wikispace, and generaly ignore WP:USER (because everything I just said is in that policy). Perhaps the policy really doesn't represent how people use wikipedia, is that my problem? I don't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, once again. a) That is a consensus for a different page not his one, the consensus for this page is being determined here and is showing this page to be accepted by the community, b) It is not duplicate information because the other one has less entries and has some names replaced by "placeholder" which makes the old one a less attractive substitute, and of course c) Even if that was consensus, consensus can change, and whatever consensus was in the past it is clear that consensus now supports the keeping of this page d) Once again what disruption????. The only disruption I see is people disrupting Beta's aggregation of statistics. This entire attempt to delete this harmless page is disruptive, and Mick you level of insistence is doubly so. 1 != 2 13:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • You are quite clearly biased, your mixing of the concepts of consensus and disruption is absolutely rididulous, you don't create a new consensus by creating a new page ignoring the old page, this is a basic fact, if this is your opinion of how consensus works then I suggest you seriously don't understand how wiki works at all. I think what you actually want to change is WP:USER, not consensus about edit lists (which already exists). It isn't a case of 'I don't like that way, I'll create another way and protect it'. Patently a wrong headed viewpoint. I say again, Mfd is not the place you overturn a previous arrangement in another forum (achieved through Mfd of that forum no less), that is basically deceptive, and downright disengenuous. Beta is fully aware of the past discussions and the position agreed there. But through your obvious bias of course you see no disruption, because the 'disruption' is against the status you require. A neutral person would recognise this fact quite easily. Frankly you have still got no persuasive argument beyond attacking the nominator not the argument. Your approach is bordering on nonsensical in the face of the facts. Your blind insistence the page is harmless is the icing on the cake, a clear dismissal of the links presented in this Mfd. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Given your history, and my history, I would say it is you that does not understand how consensus works. If you can look at this page and not accept that there is a consensus that the page is harmless, well then you are just not looking. You can't just keep pointing to a discussion from months ago and claim that it overrides the current agreement here. It is not blind insistence that the page is harmless, it is that nobody has explained how it could possible cause harm. 1 != 2 15:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Just nonsense, you don't go changing consensus about pages in wikispace through Mfd's in user space. I can appreciate exactly why you would want that to be the case, but it isn't. The fact is, the people involved in that discussion are not beholden to follow the issue around user space to wherever anyone wants to restart the debate as it suits them, that is downright insulting to the wiki, where pages are established in wikispace to reflect the community, the place for that debate is already established to those who appreciate and respect how it works. You can't accept you have insulted a large proportion of editors (over 30 there, as opposed to 21 keep voters here per your 'large' consensus) because you don't even accept you've done anything wrong. This is your problem. I don't see why in the face of your attitude here why anyone should put any faith in anything written in wikispace, clearly it means nothing to the likes of you. MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Are you saying that everyone here who gave a Keep opinion has insulted a large proportion of editors? Really if you are insulted by consensus then that is your own problem. Sometimes what the community decides will go against what some people want, that is just the way it goes. 1 != 2 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm saying you can't count. 21!>31. Simple as, despite attempts to say otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I count 3 people supporting deletion of this page. An old debate from months ago about a different page means nothing here. 21 > 3. 1 != 2 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common sense, people. It's just WP stats. I don't know what the big deal is. Singularity 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are publically known stats. They're interesting to view imo. If you don't like being included on the list, don't edit so much, don't look at it, and it would also help if people didn't draw attention to it by requesting it to be deleted. Al Tally talk 01:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep doesn't breach policy. Keep 'em. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – Just as bad as User:ST47/Stats. —Animum (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fine use of userspace. --- RockMFR 02:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Captain Panda. Enigma message 04:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm tempted to just close this right now, but I find it far more satisfying to beat MickMacNee over the head with a massive demonstration of consensus. Seriously, man, what the hell are you thinking? -- Ned Scott 07:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Gee I don't know Ned (and 1==2) [Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous]. MickMacNee (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That is regarding a different page Mick. For this page there is a rather strong consensus that it is just fine. 1 != 2 13:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Precisely, your method of consensus building is to create a new page to ignore the page that disagrees with you. How about we try that by creating an 'alternate' WP:BLP page? Ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It was probably inevitable anyway, given that it was deleted thrice by two different administrators, before being overturned at DRV. Enigma message 07:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We trust these guys with deletion tools? -- Ned Scott 07:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The first admin deleting has had multiple issues with abusing tools in the past. Al Tally talk 10:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep bad faith nomination. EJF (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Aggregation of nonprivate personal information is not an abuse of privacy. Information can already be obtained from multiple other sources. Deletion would be an unncessary interference with user's user pages for no benefit to the project. — Werdna talk 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and move it to WP space per MickMacNee (Reverse psychology for the win). This is silly. This information is public, and I disagree since a long time with the practice (courtesy) of opting out of the "official" list. -- lucasbfr talk 14:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Move it there, that is what I have advocated all along. But your disagreement over the opting out is irrelevant, if you are actually unwilling to change the current status in the place it has already been debated. MickMacNee (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If there was consensus to do that then fine, but I am pretty sure the community has decided to use the bowdlerized version in the wikispace. If that changes, and the differences in criteria come into alignment(Beta's does everyone over 5k edits, the wikispace one only the top 4000) then they can be merged. Until then it would be counterintuitive as they have different criteria and methodologies. 1 != 2 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Which is where you completely miss the point. It's not down to the community to bring their practice into alignment with Beta, he should have the common sense to merge/align his with the accepted model, and accept that warring to protect his when it disagrees with the community's is unacceptable. For the last time, the differences between the lists are immaterial (as they are meaningless in respect to actual lists of names). MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • But Mick, this is the community, they are the people who are disagreeing with you. 1 != 2 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
MMN, you know, "The community" does not mean "The people who agree with you". Consensus can change, and it appears to be so. I once thought placeholders were a good thing, but I changed my mind. -- lucasbfr talk 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with the list not violating any policies as above. If the list isn't complete or is less complete, so much the better for privacy. If it's more complete, so much the better. If there's an issue here, it's to do with Betacommand's actions to do with the list (edit-warring over things) which quite frankly seems petty and I think that processes don't necessarily have to apply to all derivatives of a page. Nevertheless, if there are issues about this, then we're not supposed to be at MfD. The solution to behaviourial problems is not necessarily to delete pages of angst. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per many above. And I'm surprised that WP:POINT hasn't come up as a prominent argument in this debate. Resolute 16:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] arbitrary section break at User:Betacommand/Edit count 4
  • Keep per 1 == 2, and per Mick's responses, which fail to justify his request. Beta is not violating any rules. If anyone wonders how many edits someone has, they can easily generate a report in seconds. [4] Beta's list is much better than the official one because it is actually updated frequently. J.delanoygabsadds 17:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak delete - while I think this is harassment by the nominator, the page is un-necessary. —TreasuryTag—t | c 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete an insulting way to circumvent s simple wish of a number of living persons who want to disengage themselves from a game that nas no relation to the goal: creation of encyclpedia. Too many people are busy in wikipedia socializing and doing other things for fun iverloading wikipedia servers. Mukadderat (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody has explained how this is insulting yet. 1 != 2 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it isn't. Al Tally talk 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That is pretty much what I am assuming unless someone shows me otherwise. 1 != 2 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The insulting part refers to the hard-won consensus that users can opt out of participating in the counting game, now someone comes along and says "ha ha no you can't, I found a loophole". I still haven't seen the exact reason for this list, other than that it has a few more entries and just-because. Franamax (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no "ha ha no you can't", there is "this is a different page at a different time and a different consensus has formed". A newer consensus can, and does replace an older consensus. The reasons for this list have be listed by multiple editors here. If the only insulting part of this page is that over changes in time and location the consensus regarding it has changed, then that is no reason for deletion. If there was a consensus against this page it would be deleted. 1 != 2 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, lets see if I understand the reasons:
  • The list has more entries. - the WP-space list could be changed also
  • The list is more up-to-date. - the WP-space could be equally easily updated
  • The list includes editors who opted out of the WP-space page. In fact, in the essence, the list exists solely to count the opted-out editors.
  • The list exists because WP and user-space should be treated differently, thus allowing user-space to contain duplicates of WP-space pages which contravene the project space consensus.
  • Lots of people like this list because it lets them compare editors by edit-count, apparently they do this often, because data 2 months old is insufficient. The people also like it because it lets them bypass the consensus reached at WP:WBE.
  • MickMacnee is a bad-faith editor with a particular grudge for BetaCommand.
Did I miss any? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, though it might sound that way :) Is that the summary? Franamax (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep, if you don't want to be in the list, make sure you get enough of your edits deleted, so your apparent number of edits stays below 5000. I found the other list actually quite handy (next to the special:ListUsers for the users who belong to the special groups) to whitelist established editors on User:XLinkBot (though the threshold of 5000 is a bit high). --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no reason for him to not have this page. As mentioned by several editors, this is all publicly available information, and having it in one place is helpful. hmwithτ 02:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this page is going to exist whether or not you want it to exist: tswiki:User:Betacommand/Edit count. Monobi (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete primarily per Pascal's points far above. This page is an end run around consensus, the arguments to keep are based on a narrow reading of policy. Community member aversion to "editcountitis" has been widely expressed and should be respected. Shadowing a WP-space page with a preferred u-space version is not consistent with the goals of the project. I don't buy for a second the "just don't look" argument, all pages are visible here and worthy of comment. Much of the commentary here is directed straight at MickMacnee rather than the page itself; while I don't agree with MMN's usual bombastic approach, he has been quite civil and cogent in reasoning here - this page is disruptive to the project. It can exist just fine as public information, somewhere other than English Wikipedia. If it's here, it should respect the painfully developed opt-out provisions. Franamax (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While your point regarding people's view of edit counts is a valid one that has some bearing, I cannot accept that this is an end run around consensus. Consensus can change, and consensus is different for different things. This MfD shows that the consensus here and now is not against this page. If consensus is against one thing, then we are welcome to try another and if consensus accepts that then good. Despite arguments to the contrary userspace and wikispace are different, as is evident by the two different consensuses that came about with the two different locations. 1 != 2 13:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's userspace and the page is fine. I also disagree with the argument that people should be allowed to opt out of having statistical information displayed (especially in userspace, and for information that can easily be generated by anyone at any time using other tools). --CapitalR (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, no valid reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Undecided, but can someone please explain why we should have two edit count lists? My first impression is that Betacommand's list is redundant with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. AecisBrievenbus 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • they are not the same, WP:WBE only includes the top 4,000 users, while the list that I keep has all users who have over 5,000 edits (5261 as of last update). the list that I keep has 1,261 more users. and it will grow as more users pass the 5,000 edit mark, unlike WP:WBE which will only have 4,000 users. βcommand 15:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and format list properly at actual list page (Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, with bots not numbered, as is our practice), rather than in Betacommand's userspace, as per previous updates of said list. All editors should be included in the list regardless of preference to be left out, to ensure that our project's history is not falsified. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep How the hell is this breaking any of the policies? However, I would suggest this be moved to WP:WBE and possibly divideed into subpages such as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians with 10,000-15,000 edits. Admittingly, the old list does need a touch up as it hasn't been updated for 3 months. Then again, I should be on the new list now according to my preferences. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Established consensus is that any list such as this one must allow people to opt out from it and be replaced with a placeholder when they do not wish to be listed by name. This does not seem to me an unreasonable request - whether for reasons of privacy, a desire to avoid unnecessary attention, the view that listing by edit count is inherently stupid and encourages Editcountitis or whatever else, many people would rather not appear on such a list, and they have every right to make that claim. Hosting such a list in userspace, without allowing people to remove their names, is anti-consensus and deeply uncivil. It should be deleted because we already have such a list in Wikipedia-space, which respects people's privacy and right not to be listed; this one is therefore redundant as well as uncivil, and as such should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how this page is anti consensus when the consensus here and now seems to be that the page should be kept. You say "any list such as this one must allow people to opt out from it and be replaced with a placeholder when they do not wish to be listed by name", well that is just not so. The only consensus I have seen on this subject is in reference to a different page, never applied to "any list such as this one". If consensus was against this page then there would not be so many keeps. 1 != 2 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I suppose I should have said 'past consensus'. It's pretty clear the current consensus is against me here. :) Terraxos (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all easily verifiable information that can already be obtained by anyone interested enough to use an edit counter tool and flick through the names of highly active people... "opt out" would be pointless. naerii - talk 22:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Geez, if it's that easy, we hardly need a wikipage for it, do we? Franamax (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
We have pages that instruct people how to edit ;) naerii - talk 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a collection of publicly available information in a human-readable form. I and likely 99.999% of Wikipedians wouldn't even have known of the existence of this page without the MfD, and I can't see how it would seriously upset anybody. I've always seen WBE type pages as a bit of harmless fun, those who take them more seriously (including the ones who rely on it to make judgements of users) need to get out more in my humble view. As for user content, I believe it should only be deleted if it violates WP:NOT - i.e. if it violates WP:HARASS or other such guidelines, or if it sets up a virtual social networking environment, or if for some other reason it impedes either the encyclopaedia itself or the community. None of these is the case here. Orderinchaos 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.