Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ST47/EditCount

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 19:32, 21 September 2007 ST47 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:ST47/EditCount" ‎ (content being moved elsewhere) — madman bum and angel 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ST47/EditCount

This userspace list was created to duplicate Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest. It was created solely with the purpose to include those editors who did not wish to be on the other list. He's making this his own list, in an effort to be "accurate." However, his actions blatantly go against the good faith requests of others. In addition, I find his preemptive protection of it to be a violation of WP:PROTECT.

  • Delete as nom. ^demon[omg plz] 13:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If he disagrees with the ability to remove oneself from the edit count list, he should discuss it on the talk page, rather than to make a "fork" to make a point. Melsaran (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This can be a bit shifty. There are many user-generated statistical and archival databases (for instance the NoSeptember Admin Project), and each serves its own purpose. I have no objection to a user hosting their own generated lists, as ST47 has done here, but if it contains certain information about individuals that said individuals do not want on Wiki, it is only appropriate to grant removal requests from those users made in good faith. If this is done only to spite those users, then delete. I have no objection to ST47 maintaining his own list provided he is willing to allow exemptions in line with the list at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest. And I disagree with the nominator's contention that protection was inappropriate, but then, I would. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The nom and Melsaran have it correct. There are plenty of reasons a user would not want to be included on the list, and they have that right. The right move would be discussion, not creating a fork. I also agree with ^demon that protecting the page was an unnecessary move done simply so ST47 could keep ownership of the list. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's rather depressing to find that I rank at 2438th on the list (and incidentally outranked by some users who have since been banned). :-) WaltonOne 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's comments like this that make some of us oppose these lists outright. For the nth time, edit count does not matter. ^demon[omg plz] 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) But why? You are not measured by your edit count. That's the whole point. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Protecting it to guard against "vandalism" is a particularly bad idea. Hut 8.5 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest Keep per WP:POINT. I am generating accurate reliable statistics for my own use and the use of others. The fact that the community is afraid of editcounts is not relevant here, what is relevant is that I want to generate and store this report for the use of my imagebot, User:STBotI, in identifying new contributors, for my own reference, and for other's use. I honestly do not care whether it's linked to, however accurate and reliable information gathering is one of my main goal on the wiki. Compare with WP:ADMINSTATS. There is no violation here with regards to WP:UP#NOT, or anything else in that policy. On the other hand, the protection is most certainly needed, because it is clear that users are going to taint any list that isn't protected. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • May I ask why you use this list instead of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest? Because you disagree with the fact that people may remove their names from that list? Then you should discuss it on the talk page, instead of creating a fork. Melsaran (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • because I need accurate information for my purposes. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest Delete per WP:POINT. I don't wish to be treated any differently to a user with 50 edits or 50,000 edits, and I don't want people to think edit count is somehow important. It's no more useful an indicator of the quality of a contributor than their typing speed, connection speed, computer speed or the amount of their time they spend on Wikipedia. I don't want to be ranked on a list that uses a completely meaningless number to signify some really non existent level of importance here, so I really don't want a fork pre-emptively protected against (bogus allegation of) vandalism. Nick 18:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Dude, it's in my userspace. I've no problem with you delinking it from the main edit count page, and at that point there's no chance that anyone would find it unless that anyone is me, or they specifically ask me for stats. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no pressing need to delete this whatsoever, valid use for a user subpage. GDonato (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I fail to see what the big deal is. Yes, people can opt out of the "official" list, but this just covers what is missed, for those that are interested in something closer to the "raw" stats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it depends on how it's intended to be used. If the intent is to simply keep one's own version for personal use, I don't see a problem. If the purpose is to circumvent the rule allowing users to remove their names and thus publish a "real" list for general consumption, then it's inappropriate. If it's not linked to from the official edit count, there's not a big problem. Leebo T/C 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a wiki. Transparency is one of the key components. Whether or not a list exists, edit counts are available for every single user; in fact, they're now available in every user's preferences. Edit counts are also available from a variety of sources; this page is merely a list of edit counts. I have a tab that can pull up the edit count of any user when I'm on their user or user talk page. Anyone care to nominate my monobook.js page for deletion? Of course not; users have a m:right to vanish, however, no one is exercising that right here. X user name made Y edits. Who cares if it's on a list? --MZMcBride 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a valid point, and a reason to change Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest and making removing your own name prohibited. However, one should not create a fork just because they disagree with the consensus at a certain page, rather, they should discuss it on the talk page of the page in question. See WP:USER#Copies of other pages: this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content. Melsaran (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, whether or not it's intended, this seems like selective enforcement. There are other lists in user subpages with the same or similar content (i.e., list of edit counts). Also, the view of user subpages has always been, in my opinion, that users who contribute a lot to the project, are allowed a lot of leeway in what they have in "their" userspace. Also, with regard to WP:USER, this area is murkier than it may seem. A broad interpretation of WP:USER would suggest that all pages are eligible under WP:USER#Copies of other pages, however, the intent of WP:USER may suggest that only articles can fall under that guideline. Either way, as has been pointed out to me previously, WP:USER is "only" a guideline, and is not policy. Aspects of it can and may be ignored under certain circumstances. Does any of this matter? Who knows? --MZMcBride 19:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.