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

message: 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)
thread_title: Mark current RFA's

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Foreign language edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed mass "please check" notice. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MFD 

message: Could I get to the list? I have passed 2,500 long ago! :) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added you while no one else has done so.--Jusjih 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keeping this page non political 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And?... Rfrisbietalk 02:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  50,000 band? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Besides, this is more of a fun thing for editors, not a truly serious area. Jmlk17 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be deleted 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Update See also Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, perhaps you have a point. Maybe you should have told JD you readded him. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Requests to be removed

message: Can we put them in a seperate list? -- Cat chi? 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I tried to remove some a little while back but got reverted. I support it though. Wizardman 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned users 

message: 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)
thread_title:  30,000 band 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed - it's not really what's meant by "high" now. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop 2,500 band? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, knock yourself out... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I am interested... 

message: I propose, if it can be automated of course, the strikeout line items be given a differentiating !! 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)
thread_title:  Visual recognition 

message: 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)
thread_title: Right to not be here

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Returned list

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too bad.