Wikipedia talk:List of non-admins with high edit counts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

stuff from User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins[edit]

I copied the contents of Rick Block's list into an unsorted section which needs to be sorted into correct categories or needs to be deleted as appropriate. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • I just need to cross-check against banned users and users who deleted themselves from his list. Shouldn't be much longer. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 22:13

Bots[edit]

Can someone please re-add any bots that were previous removed (ie, they appear on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits but not here). Bots should be crossed out, not deleted, so that future versions of this list (when WP:1000 is updated) can easily determine what is/isn't a bot. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 22:38

User template defect[edit]

The user template link to edit counts does not work properly for users with two words in their username - see, e.g.:

Can anyone fix this? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 23:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • It would appear the only way to fix it would be to ask Kate to modify her edit counter to convert _ into spaces, then everything would work. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 23:39
    • Your fix does the job effectively - good work! -- BD2412 talk 03:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mark current RFA's[edit]

Shouldn't we mark (and perhaps provide a link) to users on this list who are currently in RfA? Just a thought. -- BD2412 talk 21:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

If you think it convenient, I cannot think of any reason why you can't.--Jusjih 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7,500 edit distinction?[edit]

Would that be acceptable for y'all, working in increments of 2,500 'til we reach 10,000? Shem(talk) 01:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I only have 1,500 edits myself. This isn't for my personal benefit in any way.) Shem(talk)
I agree - the 5,000 to 10,000 block is pretty heavily populated; splitting it at 7,500 would be helpful. -- BD2412 talk 20:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added the block. 2,500+ edits also looks quite large as well. Any suggestions on how to split it up? Jaxl | talk 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH... I don't think we need a "band" for every 5000 edits at the upper end. That just tends to reinforce the criticism that this treats adminship like an editcountitis race, I think. There's doubly no point when it creates new "categories" of one (where that one isn't even interested in adminship). Alai 16:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the block for now. Robert T | @ | C 21:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think there's a case for going further, and removing (at least) the 25k+ and 30k+ blocks. Given that the purpose of list is to make note to those who have enough edits to be potentially due for consideration as "adminable", surely after a certain point it becomes pointless to "keep score". I can't imagine an RfA discussion taking the course of "only has 24,582 edits, all very minor, wait till they reach 30,000 (equally minor)". (Only ever makes minor edits might, mind you.) I promise that this is not a ruse to get myself to the top of the list on the basis of the alphabet rather a further shedload of edits. :) Alai 03:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a reasonable suggestion. BD2412 T 03:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think the list could even be pushed back to the 15,000+ block, seeing as there are only 8 users above 20,000+, over half of which have declined adminship/are bots. (You may just get to be at the top, Alai ;-)) The 25,000+ block seems to be empty as of right now as well. Robert T | @ | C 03:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Adam Carr has saved my (alleged) modesty, anyway. That being the case, I think I can say that I don't really see much point in any of the categories past 10,000 edits, to pick a nice round number. If we're maintaining categories beyond that, I think it's really only for the sake of curiosity, etc. (Kinda like a supplement for those suffering withdrawl symptoms from WP:1000 updates (though there's been one recently, it must be said).) Alai 17:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this could probably be done now and not have any problems, but I think that it won't be too long before the 10,000 block will become quite large with users moving up from 7,500 (I can already see some editors that have passed 9,000 and are closing in on 10,000.) I guess if anyone wants to do it now, they can, but I think that the 15,000 block might be needed in the near future if removed just beacause 10,000 would run the risk of becoming another 2,500 block, which is sizeable enough as it is right now. Robert T | @ | C 23:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's section as follows: 2,500, 5,000, 7,500, 10,000, 12,500, 15,000, 20,000+. — Phil Welch 23:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Let's just make sure it's kept at 20,000+. Robert T | @ | C 03:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
30,000+ has been split back out, but not consistently. I'm going to merge this back in, unless the consensus feeling on this has changed. Alai 04:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, keep the top level at 20k+. bd2412 T 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20 thousand is a good limit. Jmlk17 19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language edits[edit]

Should edits on other wikipedias be listed here? For instance User:Den fjättrade ankan has 3,504 edits on the English wikipedia and 36,731 edits on the Swedish wikipedia. Ben D. 02:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be too much of a problem, if there aren't that many. Robert 02:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So long as this source of edits is noted on the project page - otherwise, editors who check to see whether the edit count is correct may mistake a valid listing as an error or a hoax.  BD2412 talk 04:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something like:

Should it be under the heading of 2,500+ edits or 30,000+ edits? I thought this user's foreign edits were significant enough to note, I don't think foreign edits should be noted unless they're over a certain number, 2,500 maybe? Ben D. 07:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Put him under both sections by vote count.  ALKIVAR™ 07:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put:

under both the 3,500+ and 30,000+ sections. Ben D. 20:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this going to be a heckuva maintanence problem, if we start trying to do this on a systematic basis? I'll bet there's shedloads of people with significant numbers of edits on both de and en, for instance. And do we do it for editors who're not admins on other wikis, either, or for for all non-en-admins? And finally, isn't this actually a bit pointless, since the purpose of this page is related to possible admin consideration on this wikipedia, not elsewhere? Why not just set up similar pages of a per wiki basis, if there's interest in such, and interwiki them? Alai 15:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider foreign language edits so relevant here while each language subdomain has its own admins.--Jusjih 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed mass "please check" notice.[edit]

I propose we hire a cheap, slightly used bot to drop everyone on the list a note once a month or so suggesting that they confirm their position here (e.g. number of edits and not an admin). That would give people an opportunity to correctly place themselves without feeling like they were engaged in self-promotion, and would also tactfully remind users of the existence of this project. BD2412 T 22:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will the bot drop a note to everyone who's "not on the list but should be" too? Isn't that the most interesting group to find? — RichardRDFtalk 01:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One might argue that's a separate issue, both technically, and in principle. Finding such people would entail using WP:1000, which is only feasible when it's updated, or I suppose by traversing the whole list of active users (hopefully offline!). When done, people should presumably simply be added directly, though certainly sending them a message about it would be a valuable courtesy... Alai 20:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I'm concerned with those already on the list - first, are they, in fact, now admins (in which case they should remove their name)? interested (and should bold their name) or wholly uninterested (and should cross through their name)? in the wrong count? BD2412 T 20:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the magic of the AutoWikiBrowser, I've sent out such a request, and it appears to have garnered a good response from people adjusting their position, preference, or status. Contra my earlier remark, I do not think it is necessary to do this monthly - perhaps again in 6 months... bd2412 T 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MFD[edit]

This page was nominated for deletion in october 2005, but consensus was to keep it. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts for details. Radiant_>|< 13:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain page with bot?[edit]

I've written out on paper a way to automaticly update this page once a day/week with updated counts, with a feature to even give the bot commands via a talk page. Would anyone be interested in me pursuing this? It would use PHP to fetch data from the tool server's edit count, then use pywikipedia to update the pages. It would be very easy to run, and I'll do so if no one objects. Cheers! --lightdarkness (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPER YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!--Shanel 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plain old regular YES!!!!!!!!! Robert 04:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once a week or every two weeks should suffice, but apart from that... YES! —Nightstallion (?) 11:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a very good idea. NoSeptember talk 12:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • NOOOO! Many users - such as User:Wetman - apparently prefer not to publicize their attitude to adminship. Please find something more useful to do. Write an article, at last. --Ghirla | talk 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a user doesn't wish to be listed on the page, I can easily write a command for users to give the bot to not list them, such as: "LDBot set Wetman noindex". This way, users who don't wish to be listed don't have to be, while still automating the process and making it easier for everyone else. --lightdarkness (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you check the history you can see many people spend quite a bit of time updating this page. This bot would free up a lot of time for many editors to put their efforts elsewhere. NoSeptember talk 12:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page has been on my watchlist for ages and I can't say that there has been any substantial activity. --Ghirla | talk 12:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do this, the data was here already, you're just making it automated right? --Alf melmac 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - 1) this bot would just move people up from one category to the next as their editcounts progress? 2) It will not remove their comments (e.g. bolding or striking of their name, note as to a past unsuccessful RfA)? 3) It would not find people completely absent from the list who should be on it? bd2412 T 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, it would keep track of the edit counts and move them up when approprite. 2) It will not remove comments, the bot is being pre-loaded with all the current comments, and you can give the bot instructions to update particular comments. 3) It won't find people absent from the list, since it's been expressed everyone doesn't wish to be included.
While writing this response, I thought of another idea. It would seem to be easier if I could somehow find a way to just move the entire line, and not have to worry about keeping track of the comments. I'm gonna work on a testing method to see if it's possible, and re-comment here, but as for now, take the above as the answers :-) --lightdarkness (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm clear on it - I reconfirm my approval. :) bd2412 T 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like my second idea is going to work, so I'll just have to use the original way I said, it shouldn't be too much trouble. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought - within the different subheadings, would it be possible to order the editors by length of time on the project? bd2412 T 02:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, very easy to custimize. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the community's full support, dear Darkness; I'm happy to join the bandwagon, as I see the idea is GREAT myself! ;) Please proceed, and if there's any way to help you, juts yell! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly say so :D I'll finish up all the various scripts, and work on something to import all the current text from the page, and we'll go from there. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bot is coming together quite nicely, I imported all of the current usernames into my database, and I've got my script scheduled to update edit counts every hour. I'm going to set up a mimic of this page in my userspace, and let LDBot update those pages as if it were the real thing. Once I've got it running all smoothly, I'll bring it back to you guys to decide when to make the switch. Any more questions, let me know. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bot is ready for commands here, it grabs them and blanks the page nightly at 2am. Any questions let me know. --lightdarkness (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunday in the early morning, my bot will import all of the current data from the page, and will insert it into my database, from then on, my bot will keep updating my test page with all new information. After it's test run, we can probably start thinking about making the official switch? --lightdarkness (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion has kind of died down regarding the automation of the page. Is everyone still up for the idea? I can have it up and running in 2 days if you are still interested. --lightdarkness (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, of course. I still think it's a great idea! —Nightstallion (?) 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion is unchanged. bd2412 T 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, this project is still underway! I've talked with Pgk, and he's gonna help me get the data I need to update them all :D You all should see results within a week or so. Cheers! --lightdarkness (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me?[edit]

Could I get to the list? I have passed 2,500 long ago! :) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added you while no one else has done so.--Jusjih 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this page non political[edit]

I think that keeping this page non political is a good idea. There are a few other comments I'd dial down too (so as to be even handed) in addition to the one that was just edited out. Best just to say are/are not interested and/or was/was not an admin formerly and leave it at that. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 06:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Admins[edit]

Could we discuss this addition "*Former admins should not be added to this list unless they are running for adminship again." please?

There are many former admins on the list if I am not mistaken, including some that had their adminship taken away involuntarily... Either

  • this list is controlled by those on it and is an optional thing (which would be fine by me)
  • or it is comprehensive and includes everyone with high enough count. (which would also be fine by me)
  • or there are further policies around who is and is not on the list beyond mere edit count (which would also be fine by me if that were the consensus... is it?)

Right now it's some of each which seems wrong. So I have striken User:Brian0918's addition under the bold, revert, discuss paradigm. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about some specific agenda. The reason you shouldn't bother listing former admins is because future lists will just remove them anyways. All the people at Wikipedia:List of administrators are removed from this list during its generation. If former admins want to re-add themselves, that's fine, but they should make sure to watch this list for updates. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-18 18:41
I guess I'm not following the bit about autogeneration, I had expected that auto generation would honor the format as bold/not bold/strikeout convention (interested and wants to be nominated/not sure or unknown/not interested or not eligible, respectively) in its creation of the list (meaning honoring what is there now). If that's not the case, if it's too hard, then maybe I am not sure autogeneration of the list is a good idea as it would lose information, a lot of it, and require active maintenance ("everyone should watch") by a lot of people needlessly. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autogeneration is necessary because the list becomes out-of-date. It is easier to strike-out/bold a few names than to update the "ranks" for all the names. This is how it has been done in the past. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-18 19:55
I'm not sure it's necessarily "easier". See above, there is an alterative proposal for how to automate generation. I've left a message on User talk:Lightdarkness, who was talking about creating the bot to do this (and saying the bot could honor a lot of the format conventions and not accidentally add people that don't want to be on the list). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Lar's assessment and decision. Perhaps another question should be the utility and purpose of this list in general, which (given the above) is begging for a specific policy regarding it. Conducive to effective decision-making by Wikipedians, I see no reason for the list to not be comprehensive and – as a wiki page editable by all editors – to be "controlled by those on it". Wikipedians already edit under a veil of guarded anonymity. Moreover, if Wikipedians who were accorded administrator privileges lost them and or were unsuccessful in regaining them (or try for RfAdmin again), it's already a matter of record and is informative. As a conciliation, perhaps list all non-admin editor names with high edit counts but refrain from including notes? This would also make it more ... apolitical. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a public list and everyone who has enough edits and it not currently an admin should be included. If they are not, it is just an oversight, not by design. Brian, why would this list use WP:LA when it is generated? I would think that the User list (with group name=sysop) would be better, and this would not count former admins as admins. NoSeptember talk 18:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this list used WP:LA because I created it. I took the list of users by number of edits and subtracted out all the people at WP:LA. If you would like to generate this list another way, feel free, but make sure not to mix in people who have been given temporary sysop, for whatever reason. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-18 20:02
I would certainly support a consensus for this page that held that the list not have any comments whatever... only notations of status... there are comments there now about not liking admins, about thinking that certain activities are more important than others, and so forth. Although my own comment is pretty apoliticial (it merely says I don't think I'm ready) I would be happy to have it be removed if that was consensus. (I reindented a few items to make threading clearer, please change back if I erred) ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50,000 band?[edit]

Every so often someone splits off a 25,000 or 30,000 band, whereupon it's re-agreed to keep the top band at 20,000. This time it's been split off at 50,000 (which frankly seems even more pointless). Fold back in? Alai 14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The higher the band, the more pointless it is, since there are so few who inhabit the band and those surrounding it, and the point of this page is not to be a pyramid of greatness, so I would probably remove it. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-08 17:19
    • Done. I completely agree; the 20K+ band has sufficiently few who're interested, and even fewer who don't have a "track record" in the RFA stakes, that yet more "refined" categories are just going to attract further criticism on those grounds. Alai 18:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 20,000+ should be enough, no need to up the ante. feydey 04:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be enough for the present but I am not sure about the recent future. There may well be quite a number of non-admins with more than 30 000 edits in the future. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And?... Rfrisbietalk 02:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think long term not present state. First, it's highly likely that in the next few years a good number of folks will hit these milestones and more. Second, folks "play the game" according to how score is kept. Do we want to encourage people to edit a lot? I'd guess so. Therefore, counting and displaying their remarkable achievements serves to encourage behavior of the type we'd like to see. Hence, any caps at all are probably a bad idea. 100k, 200k, 500, 1,000k are all easily foreseeable. Rklawton 17:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is an immediate benefit to having the hgh bands. People in those bands will already have been consulted or considered for adminship. Having them broken out into these bands may make them easier to find when updating the page. Johntex\talk 01:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently reached the 20,000 band, it's kind of a satisfying feeling, but I'm kind of like, what now? After all, I've reached the top band for edit counts, and therefore no more recognition for my large amount of editing work on Wikipedia. I see the inclusion of bands higher than 20,000 as a bit of motivation to "keep up the good work". It's something to shoot for. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed - see also my comments about this above. Rklawton 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the higher band (or any band at all) then? Lugnuts 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I feel that the 2 500+ edits distinction should be removed now. A non-admin having 2 501 to 4 999 edits is hardly rare today. Moreover, as the qualification for a successful RfA increases every day, anyone less than 5 000 edits should not be considered with having high edit counts. Any comments would be appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 2,500 edits is particularly notable either - and more to the point, full of gaps. I have over 3,500 edits and more than six months, and a few people oppose on the basis this is insufficient. They've found something much more interesting to talk about now though ;-) Stephen B Streater 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, though I did add myself to that section a few weeks back, I found it odd it was there. 5000 should be the starting "high edit" total, in my opinion. --WillMak050389 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think that I should delete the 2 500+ edits distinction? I need the opinion of an admin or a very experienced user, before taking the necessary actions. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see removing it because it's not that high a number, or keeping it just to list potential up-and-coming candidates for adminship. I would say keep it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 02:42

I have no strong feelings on deleting or keeping. Although 5000+ seems nowadays a starting point for "high edit count" user, but keeping the 2500+ doesn't harm anyone. One possibility is moving the 2500 section to a subpage and adding a link to the project page, and if not contested after some time, then delete the subpage? feydey 09:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support eventually removing the 2500+ section, but there is no rush on this. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, for the time being, there is no harm keeping this section. But we have to recconsider this in a couple of months time when there will be quite a number of non-admins who will be having more than 2 500 edits. This situation is bound to happen! --Siva1979Talk to me 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean we should wait some set period, I meant we should wait long enough to get a better sense of how the community reacts. There is no urgency, so we can wait a couple of weeks to see if there is some sort of wider consensus. Only five of us have commented so far. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the "List of admin candidates by edit count," so I really don't see the relevance of that "criterion" for determining the minimum count to be included on this page. If 2,500 is "high," then it should be included, if it's not, then raise the minimum. I'm sure someone can do a frequency distribution of non-admin edits. I'd then pick some arbitrary proportion, e.g., the top X% (5%, 10%...? – in the ballpark of whatever it is now/was when this started) and set the count at the next highest increment of 2,500, assuming the edit count creep up will continue. That should set the minimum for a while and establish the basis (top X% ± Y%) for raising it again down the road. Rfrisbietalk 01:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of keeping the 2500 list. The lowest limit list is most likely to be incomplete, missing many that belong on the list, but by having it we are more likely to have more complete lists once people start moving up to 5000. One can use this list to give yourself a heads up of who you should be watching, and it is good to watch them many months before they consider going for adminship. By the time someone hits 2500, they have shown a certain level of commitment to the project, and they should be here, so we know that they have become something of a regular here, completely independent of whether they will ever become an admin. NoSeptember 10:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Higher I say it should be around 10,000 - a high, round number. Two thousand-five hundred is pretty low and there are probably hundreds of users that fit that classification and aren't listed. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted[edit]

This page's main intention is to promote editcountitis... isn't that what we are trying to avoid, particularly in regard to RfAs? Yet at the top of the page there is "If you recognize someone on this list, you might consider nominating them for adminship"... Edit count should not be categorised like this. --Alex (Talk) 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. Edit count has its place. How active someone has been is not the total picture of their place in the community, but it is a part of that picture. We have far too much bias against recognizing people who have been active as shown by their number of edits. All this list is saying is that "so-and-so" has made a lot of edits, so maybe they know their way around - perhaps you might like to look at those edits and see if the person might make a good admin. Johntex\talk 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the RFA process relies too much on statistics at times. However, since statistics are factual, we cannot really delete them. The problem is in culture, not in the existence of this page. As John says, it shouldn't be used for blanket nominations, but then again it isn't used as such anyway. >Radiant< 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this is more of a fun thing for editors, not a truly serious area. Jmlk17 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to be removed[edit]

Why? I don't know why someone would want to be removed, but since this is essentially a re-packaging of informaiton that is avaiable to anyone with an Internet connection I also don't know if users should be removed. This is to say nothing of the fact that said users will still be in the edit history so someone could find them if he so desired. Thoughts, anyone? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a user does not want to be associated with the list, why should they be on it? --Alex (Talk) 17:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clerical, reference reasons For the same reasons the list was created and user contributions are public knowledge, I suppose. It's public information regardless, so I don't see what the point of trying to hide it is. I especially don't know why someone would be ashamed/angry/embarassed by having a high edit count. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update See also Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps you have a point. Maybe you should have told JD you readded him. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me something that says that users have to be on this list? If somebody wants to find out a somebody else's edit count, I'm sure they'd be able to find this information themselves. jd || talk || 15:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well That's kind of the point - anyone can find this information anyway. I have no idea if there is any kind of policy regarding this as I don't think there is a precedent. I can see no compelling reason to remove anyone, except possibly people that invoke the right to disappear (which one user here has done.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page orders people by the number of edits they have made to Wikipedia. I disagree with this page even being here because every user is meant to be on the same level as everybody else, i.e. nobody is better than or superior to anybody else. Having users with more edits at the top of the list kinda makes the statement that they have made more edits than other people, and could be seen as an attempt to say that they are better than other people. If there's no policy to say that every user must be on this page, what's stopping me from removing myself? jd || talk || 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Odd I never got the impression that anyone was better/more important than anyone else via this page. Sure, it could be construed that way, but that's up to the individual user to decide; there are already several pages devoted to encouraging newbies and even anonymous ips to edit (cf. the note at the beginning of list of editors by count.) There is also no policy stopping anyone from adding you again, so it would be pointless reverting. This page exists as a courtesy to curious users, not a proscription that X is more imoprtant and Y (even if he is.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that this page puts users in categories that show who has made more edits than everybody else. If people want to be curious, they can be curious without my name being on my list; I don't want it here, and I'm sure the omission of myself isn't going to make some guy think twice about making some edits. jd || talk || 16:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the word[edit]

RFA is really not so harsh as people think! If you're moderately high on this list, go for it! >Radiant< 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is always worth a shot. Be BOLD right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlk17 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 May 2007

Banned users[edit]

Can we put them in a seperate list? -- Cat chi? 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No, just remove them. Who cares about the edit count of a banned user? WP:DENY. >Radiant< 12:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Radiant on this. We don't need the edit counts of banned users. Also, I don't see the need to have bots in the list. This just clutters up the list with unnecessary entries. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be very bold and remove banned users from the list, as nobody objected. Feel free to revert and discuss. Melsaran 11:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I tried to remove some a little while back but got reverted. I support it though. Wizardman 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30,000 band[edit]

Now that we have this beautiful 30,000 band, we need to go through all the 20k people to make sure that they haven't hit 30. Right offhand, I think NE2 and SPUI have both surpassed 30k long ago, but they're still in the 20,000 block. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, we should go back and re-include those current ad hoc split out, back into the 20k+ block, per the several past discussions to that effect. Otherwise we quickly get into runaway granularity creep, which sure enough is already underway. Alai 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop 2,500 band?[edit]

Has anyone given any thought to dropping the 2,500 band? Considering Wikipedia's growth, 2,500 edits is not really all that impressive anymore. Aside from that, noticing that most users don't even add themselves into the list until they're already as far as the 5,000 band, it seems that this could be dropped with little consequence. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it's not really what's meant by "high" now. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested...[edit]

I am interested in becoming an admin one day, and I fit the 7500+ edit section (seen here). Could I be added to the list? Thanks. xihix(talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, knock yourself out... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have a bot re-compile this entire list; it seems to be very old. I'm not on it, for example, despite having crossed 5,000 quite a whole back. --M@rēino 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual recognition[edit]

I propose, if it can be automated of course, the strikeout line items be given a differentiating colour!! It would certainly make it easier to distinguish them apart from those that might potential be an admin one day and those who choose not to. Just a thought! --HJKeats (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right to not be here[edit]

As with the list of high edit counts people have the right to not be on the list, do not replce my name. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Returned list[edit]

Wasn't even aware it was up for removal. Looked through and there was only a debate for a few short days and the template wasn't exactly clear from cursory inspection that the bulk of the article was to be cut.Londo06 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the page as "historical". If you believe that the MFD was handled improperly, you will need to take that up at deletion review. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In closing the MFD, while I felt that the arguments for keeping the history outweighed the arguments for completely deleting the page, the arguments for outright keeping it were not strong. — xaosflux Talk 03:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where would I go to voice an opinion on the template which seemed to be unclear that essentially the article was being deleted in its then format.Londo06 08:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad.[edit]

It's too bad this was deleted, I thought the useful feature of it was in fact identifying those users with high edit counts who did not want to be nominated (or could not be) so as to avoid embarrassing them with the process. bd2412 T 07:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:List_of_non-admins_with_high_edit_counts&oldid=1085600501"