Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Question

This one is a bit odd. Are ip users included? SHZ 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I'm pretty sure the answer is no, not least because I've never noticed an IP on this list and there are some with high edit counts. One entire country in the gulf routes its internet through one IP. Also the description is Wikipedians, and an IP with a high edit count, is unlikely to be from one individual person. ϢereSpielChequers 20:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"::The answer is definitely no; IP editors cannot be included because they do not have an edit count field in Wikipedia's database. Graham87 04:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely there wouldn't be an "edit count field" - it's a query result of how many edits a user has. So this would be calculated on unique user IDs or IP addresses. Thankfully, IP editors aren't included in the list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an edit count field, otherwise these types of queries would cause a lot of stress on the servers. (as it is there is a lot of stress just using the edit count field) Werieth (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User groups not populating properly?

It appears that the user groups for some users are not populating properly - see #1, #82, #115, #164 for examples where there appear to be extra commas. Does anyone know how to fix this for future runs? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's noted that this is due to Education Program pages that the "bot" doesn't know what to do with. However, I, too, would like to see this fixed. If I could find the bot that does these updates (hint, hint, people), I'll do it myself. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jackson Peebles: - It's ‎BernsteinBot - see the history of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It's not completely obvious, but by reading Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Configuration we can see that the bot substitutes a template in order to turn full user group names into abbreviated user group names (cf. {{aug}}). It looks like the template currently doesn't have a sensible default value set, so when it comes across an undefined user group, it outputs an empty string rather than simply outputting the unabbreviated user group name. I'll tweak the template momentarily, but someone may want to go through and add additional abbreviations at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GoingBatty and Jackson Peebles: This edit should somewhat fix the issue. When the bot re-runs the report, it will re-substitute this template and the undefined user group names will now be output instead of an empty string being output. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, MZMcBride, your work and instruction is always appreciated! I added the rest of the active user groups - hopefully those will populate! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Methodology and tabulation: We don't really analyze Quality vs. Quantity?

I think this list is rather disingenuous and doesn't really depict an accurate reflection of how content is added on Wikipedia. I compare this list with Barry Bonds topping the home run list by using steroids compared with the earlier numbers Babe Ruth and Roger Maris who were just angry drunks. The stats need to be branded with an asterisk.

Chiefly: How many of the people on the top 5,000 list never use bots vs. how many of them are on this list exclusively because they do huge numbers of small repetitive edits by bots? I have over 7,500 edits under my current user name, and likely 15,000-20,000 under my old user name from a few years ago. I have never used a bot, and do everything manually...yet there are a lot of users who have 50,000-1,000,000 edits who almost exclusively do the same kind of edit on a compartmentalized tranche of articles and rely on bots. While I really don't care about numbers...because after all it's all about adding quality content...I wish there were some metric that showed the difference between editors like me (who never breaks into lists like this), and then the editor who tops the list because of the assistance of bots.

For instance, how many FAs or GAs are amassed by those editors with 50,000-1,000,000 edits?

I would probably be in the Top 100 if my only contribution here was to write a bot that changed recieve to receive.

Just food for thought.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they are using actual bots, more often than not they are using tools to assist their edits, bot are fully automatic. This is a list of user by the number of edits not quality. Werieth (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The pie chart captions and legends do not agree

It seems that the legends of the pie charts should read "editors 1-1000, 1001-2000, etc" (which would agree with the caption) rather than "1-1000, 1001-2000, etc edits" which suggests that the slices represent users with between 1-1000, 1001-2000, etc. edits.

In addition to not agreeing with the caption, this would also mean that "the rest of wikipedia" are the editors with > 10,000 edits (not consistent with the title of the pie chart) and that *these* huge editors are the ones excluded from pie char number 2. Originalname37 (Talk?) 18:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I pointed this out on the previous version of this chart but no-one took any notice. FWIW, I read the key as the other way around, i.e. that 70% of wikipedia is written by editors that have made zero edits, which is even more ridiculous. I know what it's trying to show and I can see that it looks fairly accurate, but taken literally the key is nonsense. danno_uk 17:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone wants to suggest an improvement that doesn't involve deletion, let me know, and I will update it for the next update. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Originalname37 - just change the captions. GoingBatty (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Errrh the captions are correct, it's the legend in the actual file that's wrong. ϢereSpielChequers 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops - you're right! 04:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs)

So I guess that's the suggestion that doesn't involve deletion. Change the legends in the pie charts (the actual image files) to read "editors 1-1000, editors 1001-2000, etc.", rather than "1-1000edits, 1001-2000edits, etc." This will solve the problem. I suppose this requires either remaking the image, or editing the image via Illustrator or similar.Originalname37 (Talk?) 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Also the quantity numbers look strange, and that's because the percents are too close there. In the "The Top 10,000" chart, the 1-1000 section has 83,748,977,41%. What is that? 83 billion percent? Most likely 83 million with 41% share. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose we create a new list

Specifically, I propose someone come up with a script that calculates the number of edits per day a user has made, and ranks users based on that. Maybe something like WP:List of Wikipedians by edits per day. Jinkinson (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My train broke down

Stats at 2013-10-02. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Rank	Edits	Cum Edits	Cum %
50	197,892	18,727,860	8.5%
100	144,249	26,968,762	12.2%
500	68,388	65,037,842	29.5%
1,000	43,820	92,021,033	41.7%
2,000	26,795	125,987,114	57.1%
3,000	19,535	148,759,447	67.4%
4,000	15,164	166,007,761	75.2%
5,000	12,187	179,532,418	81.3%
6,000	10,137	190,654,448	86.4%
7,000	8,523	199,954,015	90.6%
8,000	7,379	207,885,486	94.2%
9,000	6,411	214,747,011	97.3%
10,000	5,621	220,754,154	100.0%
20	329,847	11,107,410	5%
69	167,531	22,184,467	10%
245	99,711	44,228,043	20%
518	67,532	66,258,489	30%
918	46,676	88,303,655	40%
1,479	33,507	110,384,319	50%
2,253	24,537	132,463,558	60%
3,306	18,124	154,521,215	70%
4,764	12,737	176,593,828	80%
6,852	8,727	198,677,888	90%
8,253	7,085	209,712,092	95%
10,000	5,621	220,754,154	100%
636	57,775	73,609,057	33.3%
2,919	19,966	147,161,134	66.7%
10,000	5,621	220,754,154	100.0%

Top 5,000-10,000 edits

I think that since these lists exist, they should somehow be included in the article. The page doesn't need to list all of the accounts, just note that page lists for Top 5,000-10,000 accounts also exist:
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–6000
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/6001–7000
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/7001–8000
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/8001–9000
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/9001–10000
Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that this information is at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#List but it isn't very prominent. I've looked over this page several times and never noticed it before it was pointed out to me. Could it be made more visible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's already in the section with the list, I guess it could be at the bottom of the list as well. 117Avenue (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

related ...

The Top 5,000 all appear on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Why does it take 5 pages to present the Top 5,000-10,000 edits? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The others are 1000 per page too. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Lists of Wikipedians by number of edits

Sorry to bother you, but I don't understand your posting at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#related ... Which others? If you are referring to the first 5,000, you've missed the point of my question - the top 5,000 all appear on one page: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

They are visible on one page, but that page is built from several others. There are ten pages, each listing 1000: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1001–2000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/2001–3000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/3001–4000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/4001–5000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–6000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/6001–7000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/7001–8000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/8001–9000; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/9001–10000. Of these, the first five are transcluded to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, the last five are linked. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Placing them all on one page has been discussed in the past. The issue was loading time, we didn't want users with slower connections to be unable to load this page. My thought on the cut off was 10,000 edits, which means it is time to expand this list to 6,000 users. 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, why not transclude 5-10,000 onto a second page? That would avoid increasing the page size, and would enable users to search all of 5-10,000 on one page, rather than having to load and search 5 separate pages. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. 117Avenue (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so. What's the process to ask the gurus to implement this? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't need a "process" as such - just create a link in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits to a new page named something like Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, page 2, create that page beginning with some explanatory text (preferably linking back to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits), and follow it with the following five lines:

{{Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–6000}}

{{Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/6001–7000}}

{{Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/7001–8000}}

{{Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/8001–9000}}

{{Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/9001–10000}}

It will then update automatically. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK I have created Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, places 5001 - 10000, but don't look yet because it contains a few unflagged bots. However it does make it easier to find such bots, and in a few days when the next update comes most people will go up a place or three because those bots will have gone. ϢereSpielChequers 10:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have called it Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000. 117Avenue (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to all of you. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice: RfD of an old list that includes even users who have asked not to be listed is being discussed.

Notice: deletion of an old list that includes even the users who have asked not to be listed is being discussed here. --Elvey (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit count

But this is not quite true, I made 12 500 edits, not 12 100, as it is indicated here.. or , what is the matter? Hafspajen (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several threads on this in the archives. It depends upon how the counting is done: some counters include deleted edits, some don't; some count page moves, some don't; and so on. Additionally, the data used by that tool is not real-time data but a copy, which might not be up to date. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding unlisted name to the list

I just wanted to add my name on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/8001–9000 as I have 6655 edits but am not listed there. But I soon realised that it is a bot updated page. Can you please let me know how to list myself there. I think that the project documentation page should contain information on how to add ones name in case the person finds ownself not listed but eligible. Diptanshu^Talk 14:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Far as I can see, you're listed here at position 8830. --Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I later found that too. But is there a possibility that an user might be missed from the list? Furthermore, I found that Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of Indian Wikipedians by number of edits is maintained manually and not by a bot. Is there anyway that this list could be automated? Diptanshu^Talk 15:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You're up to 8603 now. Regarding the Indian list: I suggest that you put a message on the owner of the bot which updates these pages, i.e. MZMcBride (talk · contribs), the owner of BernsteinBot (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance! I have put a note on the mentioned page. Lets see henceforth. Diptanshu^Talk 13:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

massmessage-sender

Currently, massmessage-sender is the only userright that I can see that isn't being abbreviated in the list. It is quite long and attention grabbing giving the 52 people with this right undue weight (including me). Therefor, I propose that it be abbreviated as MMs and welcome others opinions on this matter. @MZMcBride: Technical 13 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of edits going down for some?

I noticed in the recent update that the number of edits went down for some editors. For example, User:Hmains went from 559,649 to 551,726 and User:Magioladitis went from 400,426 to 393,695. How does this happen? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I really don't pay attention to these counts, but I am still editing away and not knowingly in a negative way. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  It got down for me as well. I think it is just a different way of counting (like deleted edits do not count any more or smth like this)--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mine's gone up today, but by about 125 fewer than I was expecting. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The count was done on Monday, not Wednesday, this week. Johnlp (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A little overdue

usually counted on Wednesdays, last week counted on Monday and posted on Wednesday, and this week a little slow getting to update...what gives? --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit count

Can anyone shed light on why the edit count on this page (and presumably also on the other 'List of' pages) is different to the one I can link to from the bottom of my 'Contributions' page? The count always seems to be higher on this page (except when updating is delayed, as currently) e.g. at the moment, on this page my count is listed as 6,882, dating to the 29 January, which is only a smidgin under the 6,891 shown on the 'Edit counter' linked from my Contributions page, yet that dates to 7 February, and I've done many more than 9 edits inbetween those dates. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look at other posts higher up this page, and can see that different counters use different criteria. So I guess that answers my own query. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Error? The 24 April 2014 page appears not to have updated numbers

I happen to have open the older 1—5000 list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits) the one that says, "This page was last modified on 13 April 2014 at 03:49." As far as I can tell, however, the listed numbers of edits on this 13 April page are exactly the same for a modest sample of editors, including the number of edits of all of the top ranked editors, as on the current page, the one that says, "This page was last modified on 24 April 2014 at 10:01," and that has under the heading "List" text that reads, "This is a list of Wikipedians sorted by edit count as of 04:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)."

But the 13 April page also has exactly this same text under the heading "List": "This is a list of Wikipedians sorted by edit count as of 04:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)."

My guess is that the text date of "04:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)" was, in fact, written and saved on 13 April 2014 at 03:49, because it is unlikely that the coincidence of 49 minutes after the hour was random. The text under the heading "List" probably should read, "This is a list of Wikipedians sorted by edit count as of 04:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)" on both pages, the one modified on 13 April 2014 and also the one modified on 24 April 2014. Wikifan2744 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Last modified ... refers to the viewed page being modified, which is irrelevant as the actual changes occur in the included subpages. See this last change. The change on the April 24 was an addition by an IP which was quickly reverted. Agathoclea (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

The acronym WP:MAW was just added today in this edit. It was a brand new acronym for this page that didn't exist before and it also doesn't accurately describe this page. WP:MOSTEDITS is purely a list of user accounts and the number of associated edits. Many of these accounts are inactive and some are blocked users so it is not accurate to describe the list as "the most active Wikipedians" because that implies that this is a list of currently active users. I'd like to hear the creator of the list (Pcb21) opinion on this but he is not currently active himself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The acronym was created about three years ago. What's the big deal? Someone found it useful. Unlike this pursuit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We only need to display one or two shortcuts; three at the most, but not five. The WP:ALPHABETSOUP for this page comprises twelve redirects: WP:4000; WP:4K; WP:EDITS; WP:LOWBEC; WP:MAW; WP:MOSTACTIVE; WP:MOSTEDITS; WP:NOE; WP:TOP1000; WP:TOP5000; WP:WBE; WP:WBNOE, some less cryptic than others. We certainly don't need to list them all. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine, go by the redirect page views preferably (e.g. WBE and NOE get less than a dozen a day, MAW gets... more...), although on a page like this I can't see a problem with a dozen redirects, who cares? But the original complaint was a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If, in the future, someone wants to add a shortcut to a new page in Wikipedia namespace and the best shortcut happens to be already in use (perhaps one of those mentioned here), then there might be a wish to usurp that shortcut (although, by that time it may already be in use on many archived pages and in many edit summaries). Compare cybersquatting.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

[I should have omitted the comma after the conjunction "although", or else included another comma after the adverbial phrase "by that time", in accord with MOS:COMMA.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)]

Note: Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians redirects here; WP:MAW is obviously simply a shortcut for this alternative title. If you wish to delete the shortcut, don't forget the full redirect. That said, I for one did find it useful as I did not remember the technically correct title. No need to be pedantic, this is exactly what redirects are for.

Also, I don't see any objective way to decide which shortcuts are OK to list and which are not; I don't know if a policy exists to help. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Back to basics. How would the project be improved by the additions/deletions suggested here? Specifically what harm is there in having multiple acronyms and why would the project be improved by having fewer? We need fewer assertions and more reasoned arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saga City (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 May 2014‎

How about WP:TWOSHORTCUTS? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only person who finds it funny that there are four shortcuts to the two shortcuts text? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Don't do as I do, do as I say". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's what I tell my six-month-old... not that he listens either. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comedy gold. Perhaps some subtle Wikipedian humour? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for the 10th point on Caveat lector

I think we should address that some users have been topic banned or restricted from editing a number of pages, thus they cannot raise their edit counts like most of the other users. OccultZone (Talk) 03:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Wouldn't it be useful to find a way to add Banned and Restricted categories to the User Groups column? SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, unless there were any hidden categories from start. Are there? OccultZone (Talk) 03:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that topic bans and restrictions always reduce peoples edit count. Someone who gets restricted from editing in a particular area and instead uses huggle or AWB may have an increase in edit count. More seriously at present the only things we list are user rights which are positives. If we were to turn this into a list of users with restrictions then it would become in part a name and shame list, at best we would then expect some of them to opt out, at worst it would get this list deleted. ϢereSpielChequers 22:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: I don't think it will be wise to tag people with "TB"(topic banned) label. But yes, we can address this issue like I've noted above. You cannot use huggle or even AWB on those subjects where you've been topic banned. Those who are topic banned, they most probably quit wikipedia(or I know at least a few who did) or they sock all the way to indef block. There are some who still remain with the hope that they will be unbanned from the topic someday, while some people don't bother so much. OccultZone (Talk) 00:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The two most prominent examples that I can think of, prominent that is because they are very high on this list, are a Wikipedian who is banned from automated editing and a Wikipedian who was banned from certain areas within Wikipedia Talk but welcome to do their valuable work with AWB. The effect on their editing is significant, especially in the former case, but goes in opposite directions. One has been greatly slowed down in his editing, the other was speeded up. ϢereSpielChequers 08:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Taking a completely different tack on this, I don't see why this proposed 10th point is either necessary or appropriate. The list's intro says quite clearly: There are many reasons why a total number of edits usually does not indicate quality of work, quality of an editor, or significance of contributions. If users are topic banned or restricted, then their edits have had quality issues. The fact that they might have a higher total if they'd been able to make additional problematic edits is irrelevant, and does not belong on this page. (The same would therefore apply to SteveMcCluskey's idea.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Inactive users are noted by not being linked. 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: You haven't wrote anything concerning the 10th point. Your different tack is either so inappropriate or invisible that it is lacking sense. If there are "many reasons", then why even 9 points have been indicated? Agreed with the comment above that inactive users are already de-linked. You are not topic banned only for the quality issues, but also because of the long series of edit wars. Many times edit warring has to do nothing with the quality of editing. OccultZone (Talk) 04:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, I did write about the 10th point. I said that that these theoretical additional edits that problematic editors weren't allowed to make were irrelevant here, since the points in this section are about quality and/or significance. Therefore, your proposed 10th point was not appropriate for this list. As for why nine points have been indicated, I'm guessing that this is how many were considered germane, and the last time I looked, nine qualifies for "many". (Why you think edit wars say nothing about the quality of editing is baffling to me: it's disruptive to Wikipedia, and therefore an indication of quality problems.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: But you are not getting the point. I can provide a example, if someone changes the line on this page "Israeli victory; Palestinian Arab defeat;" to "Israeli defeat; Palestinian Arab victory;" and one editor reverts this change twice under 24 hours, he/she will receive a block for breaking the 1rr sanctioned rule. Edit warring is far different than disruptive editing. Topic ban can be sanctioned for long term disruptive editing, but also for edit warring. The sentence you have pointed to,(in green) it doesn't mention any sanction or topic ban. OccultZone (Talk) 05:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, I have gotten the point, thank you. It's clear you want this addition; I strongly believe it is unnecessary and doesn't belong on the page. We will have to agree to disagree, and I'm hereby on record as opposing your proposal. The caveat lector section is just there to give some examples as to why the total number of edits may not truly reflect a person's total contribution to Wikipedia, and adding every minor category would be counterproductive. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it's relevant enough to add. The others are like "these numbers may not be accurate" or "these numbers may not reflect quality". This is more like "these numbers are accurate, but they might have been different, if the person hadn't gotten into trouble". If we add that, we would need to think about adding things like "these numbers are accurate, but they might have been different, if the person hadn't gotten a job/died/had their computer break/gone in vacation/moved someplace with a slow internet connection/etc". The fact that people have different opportunities just doesn't seem to be relevant to understanding the list of numbers themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, you seem to be forgetting that whether this page or any other "Wikipedia:" page, they are not concerned with anything that happens outside wikipedia. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• @WereSpielChequers: Replying to your above comment. I agree, we've got members who have been banned from using any thing that resembles automated or even semi-automated tool. Topic ban or sanctions are just not limited with the content but also from these technical forms. OccultZone (Talk) 08:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Counts on user page

Users can display some counts on their user page:

154,000+This user has made more than 154,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

105This user is ranked 105 on the list of Wikipedians by number of edits.

This user is ranked 4063 on the list of Wikipedians by articles created.

What is not displayed is the number of articles created, only the ranking. I would like that to be displayed, but I don't know where to ask. Any advice? Anyone able to make a display?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Personal statistics for several userboxes that would display the number of articles created. GoingBatty (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

position in list, or why some people are about to jump dozens of places

During the July interregnum when this list was not being updated, by coincidence there was a big purge and dozens of inactive bots, some inactive for several years, were deflagged. Therefore they have started appearing on this list and some people will have slipped dozens of places. Redrose John of Reading and I have started adding them to the deflagged bot list, but people, especially those in positions 3,000 - 10,000 are going to see some oddities in their position until the cleanup is completed. ϢereSpielChequers 08:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: I have? Did I promise something last week, possibly whilst intoxicated? I told you that beer tasted funny. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've obviously failed to sober up yet from the Sunday before last. Can't understand how I got you two confused. ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Count question

There are multiple ways of counting edits, per WP:EC. I'm curious to know which method this page uses. The count that appears on [{WP:POPUPS]] for my username is 26,783. The count on the labs edit count tool is 26,370 + 703 deleted edits for a total of 27,973. The count number used on this page (26,290 on 6/25/14, plus about 550 edits since then) seems closer to the popups number but I can't tell if it's identical. If there's a concise way to characterize how these counts are done, per the variations listed on WP:EC, it would be good to add that information at the top of this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The latest update has made the page much easier to understand, as the new figures exactly match those shown by WP:POPUPS. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's made my count drop relative to adminstats: previously, this report showed a figure about 350 greater than Template:Adminstats/Redrose64 (Edits+Deleted); now it shows a figure 907 less than adminstats. I've lost about 1250 edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad it's finally been fixed. Counts here had been off for over two and a half years: they were slightly inflated (160, then about 3%) starting around the beginning of February 2012, and significantly more inflated after the database rebuild in mid-August of the same year (over 400), where it stayed until today. For the first time since August 2012, the number in the latest list here matches the number given by Preferences for me, which in turn is only 68 below the User Analysis (wmflabs supercount tool) result (which includes 46 deleted edits). This is pretty close for a 30K+ edit total. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It now agrees with my edit count in preferences. How the move to labs has reduced the number of alternative realities is beyond my ken, perhaps someone from CERN can explain. But for me at least preferences and labs are now in the same dimension. I think we can conclude however that adminstats is in a parallel universe. ϢereSpielChequers 10:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Can a list be created of only active users?

Since there are users on this list who have not edited for a number of years, a second, associated, list with a nearly-same title, except for one word, "active", Wikipedia:List of active Wikipedians by number of edits, could be created, which would contain only those editors whose user name is linked. No one should feel slighted or excluded since this, original, list would still exist, while anyone taking a Wikibreak would automatically become part of the new list upon making an edit. Each list would have a link to the other list and the same [Placeholder] opt-outs would apply to both lists. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There are many active users that prefer not to create a userpage. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 10:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect Roman Spinner is referring to the distinction the list makes between the linked names (indicating active users) and the unlinked names (indicating inactive users). The links can be red or blue. If so, the simplest answer would seem to be for the bot that creates this list to add another numeric column, skipping inactive users in the count. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There used to be Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits. 117Avenue (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with 117Avenue, if you want to recognize the active wikipedians, just open some discussion about Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The reactivation of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits would, indeed, be welcome as providing a count approached from another perspective, but it would not achieve the same purpose as my original proposal. A glance at the recent edits list in its final update, "Period: 2013-09-01 — 2013-09-30 (UTC)", indicates that it is focused to such a dedicated degree upon the recent (i.e. 30-day) count of edits that it sidelines the total count. In other words, the "Total Edits" column would only include those editors who were among the top 5000 editors in making edits within the past 30 days. Longtime editors who may have a high total edit count, but have been otherwise preoccupied for the past month or two months or six months and only had time to make one or two edits per day, thus remaining active, but having a low recent edit count, would drop off the list altogether, while very recent editors, who have just started, would occupy the entire bottom of the list with such statistics as Total Edits: 95, Recent Edits: 95. As can be confirmed by clicking on the descending order sorting arrow within the final, September 2013, incarnation of the list's "Total Edits", brand-new editors who only started editing and whose total count is the same as their count within the past 30 days, occupy over a thousand places at the bottom of the list. There is, of course, nothing wrong with such a count and, furthermore, it encourages new editors by giving them a list which provides an accounting of their starting efforts. However, in returning to the original proposal, the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits, while welcome, would not be able to rank, in its most recent form, solely active editors in order of the totality of their edits. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Serves no encyclopedic purpose beyond a new and improved pissing contest, with less contestants. Wikipedia is an endeavor to create encyclopedia. Next thing and one starts demanding List of LGBT editors by number of edits or, better, as the recent fad goes, List of female wikipedians by number of edits. -No.Altenmann >t 15:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is merely a discussion — there is no need to cast votes — or aspersions. The "Oppose" is presumably against the creation of Wikipedia:List of active Wikipedians by number of edits, against the reactivation of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits and against the continuation of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. One need only to consult the archives of these discussions for discovery of the few determined Wikipedians who have been militating against such lists for a good number of years. This list, however, has survived because it is an internal matter, supported by consensus, and not part of the main encyclopedic body. The proposed List of active Wikipedians by number of edits would not be a separate endeavor such as the redlinks sarcastically put forth in the above posting, but simply a split-off from the already-existing Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Let us attend to this process in good faith. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

re:"this is merely a discussion" - so very nice of you. Impying me being not part of a discussion, right? A smart way to get consensus. And how is that my suggestions are not spin-offs. Per User:Wavelength, we may have sortable columns by sex/gender, number of userboxen and so on. Yes, this list survived. But you may be surprised to learn how many various wikifun activities didn't after "a good number of years". Consensus may change, so why don't we keep my opinion noted, even if not accepted, OK? -No.Altenmann >t 03:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has come out in favor of a one-sided discussion, since the only exchange of views worth having is one with opposing sides. However, the use of intemperate terminology and inappropriate sarcasm, tends to diminish the influence of your words. Unlike your derisive proposals for lists, my suggestion for Wikipedia:List of active Wikipedians by number of edits is a very modest one, which does not even need to result in the creation of a separate list. As User:Mike Christie pointed out above, "the simplest answer would seem to be for the bot that creates this list to add another numeric column, skipping inactive users in the count". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you opened a discussion about Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits yet? That seems to be most reasonable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not, as yet, but I do agree with the list's introductory "Note: This is a non-essential, "nice to have" page". As I indicated above, I would welcome its reactivation, although it would not fulfill the function for which I opened this discussion — that of listing all active Wikipedians by the total number of their edits. If such a discussion is opened, I will support the proposal but, for the time being, should concentrate on my original initiative. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The present list can have a sortable column for "Date and time of most recent edit".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It could, but it would increase the size of the page - and that is a problem, especially for editors whose IT set up puts this page at the limit of what they can open. It also wouldn't give you Wikipedia:List of active Wikipedians by number of edits, but Wikipedia:List of high edit count Wikipedians by recency of their latest edit. To create Wikipedia:List of active Wikipedians by number of edits you need to filter out inactive Wikipedians. ϢereSpielChequers 08:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No update

Resolved

 – migrated to labs

No update for three weeks. Anyone know what's wrong? Tigerboy1966  05:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also noticed that, but I have no idea what's going on. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:MZMcBride#BernsteinBot. Jenks24 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits not updating. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We lost this report as a result of the toolserver migration to labs. I will file a bot request. ϢereSpielChequers 22:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hi WereSpielChequers, your request just got archived with no answers [1] - I would guess it was a bit too undefined without a specific list of what useful toolserver functions did not get migrated. Maybe this, and any other found, should be requested again but as a specific requirements? KylieTastic (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Also it might help the request if this link [2] was included for reference. KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have re-request a bot take just this task over. linky KylieTastic (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Due to popular demand MZMcBride has migrated this report to labs. ϢereSpielChequers 23:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thumbs up! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Was the edit count supposed to go down? 117Avenue (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just updated the record, as I do every two months, and some of the numbers are still going down. 117Avenue (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi 117Avenue If you mean the figures between your "July 31, 2014" and "September 3, 2014" updates I think this would be because of the bots WereSpielChequers removed after the 31st July see here - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I thought July 31 was stable. Thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

When bots become inactive they eventually have their bot flag removed. So this list relies on people (usually me) updating the list of unregistered bots, and this report then excludes registered bots and unregistered bots that are on the list of unregistered bots. We can't simply exclude accounts with bot in the title because some people have bot in their name. During the hiatus earlier this year when the list was not being produced the crats did a purge of inactive bots so there were a whole bunch of them to remove after the list started running again. Of course that won't effect anyone's edit count, but it will have effected some people's position in the list. There was also a big drop in some people's edit counts listed here, for me it now agrees with what I get from preferences so either both are wrong or both right but at least they are now consistent. ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V

How did User:Xenobot Mk V appear as #20 on today's list? GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: The software that generates this page has been taught to remove bot accounts, but this account's bot flag was removed yesterday. I've added it to the list at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Breaking up sections

Should the sections be broken up? The 1 to 1000 list is terribly long, and I think it should be broken up into 1-100 subsection, 100-500 subsection, and then 500-1000, respectively. This will make the page much easier to navigate. Please, editors, say your feedback. Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree. Clusters of 100 would be much more manageable and navigable. I have quite a hard time scrolling in increments of 1,000. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The list is a balance of size and readability, we want to include enough people that joining the list doesn't seem a ridiculous ambition and enough information to be useful, but for some of us that has effects on load time. Splitting into sections of 100 would add lots of section breaks, and a lot of bytes to a long page. I wouldn't object to breaks every 500 though. ϢereSpielChequers 10:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Clusters of 500 are better than the present system of clusters by 1,000. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikisource

Is it possible to make such list for English Wikisource? Hausratte (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hausratte. Yes, it's possible to make such a list for the English Wikisource. The relevant script is available at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Configuration and can be run from Wikimedia Tool Labs. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: Thanks for the reply! Could you please make such a list there? if you have time of course :) Hausratte (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

By namespace?

Is there a tool or list somewhere that notes the users with the most edits for individual namespaces? Dragons flight (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dragons flight. I don't know of such a tool. There are tools that will aggregate edits by namespace on a per-user basis, but I don't know of any tools or reports that aggregate edits by namespace for all users. It would be an interesting report to read, but probably fairly annoying to write. You'd need to tally the per-namespace counts for each user with edits (probably a few million users total), which would take a long time and involve a lot of sequential scans. The reason that this report updates so frequently is that a very rough edit count is already computed and stored in the user table, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I was mainly curious who are the main contributors to some of the esoteric and technical namespaces (template / module / mediawiki). Shame that no such list already exists. I could create one if I really wanted to, but who has the time. Dragons flight (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Page history

Although the page is updated daily, the changes are apparently not restored in the page history. In a similar page in the Finnish Wikipedia (which is shorter and updated about once in 2-4 weeks) one can see the history. This is no big deal, but I'm only interested in knowing whether it is possible to see the history of this page. K9re11 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@K9re11: The page is built from these sub-pages: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1001–2000, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/2001–3000, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/3001–4000 and Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/4001–5000. You can explore the history by looking at the history of those sub-pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! K9re11 (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not updating?

The list appears to have stopped updating two or three days ago. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The most recent update was a week ago on the 30th April. A note has already been sent to the bot operator - the bot is still doing other things and the bot operator has been around recently, so normal service may well soon be resumed. ϢereSpielChequers 03:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like updation is suspended for an extended period of time. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm counting close to a week now. The list itself is not much more than a feel-good thing, but if the bot is mis-firing, this is a problem....Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: It was close to a week seven days ago... as WereSpielChequers noted, the last update was 30 April, so it will be two weeks tomorrow. See histories of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000; /1001–2000; /2001–3000; /3001–4000; /4001–5000; /5001–6000; /6001–7000; /7001–8000; /8001–9000; /9001–10000. MZMcBride (talk · contribs), whose bot BernsteinBot (talk · contribs) prepares these, is aware; but they have a lot of non-working reports at the moment, some of which haven't updated in twelve months or more. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. They edited the 'pedia a few days ago, so it's not as though they're inactive; hopefully it gets sorted out soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not inactive, but still unpaid volunteers. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. :-) There are a lot of database reports (over 100), some of which are horribly complex. And for various reasons, not many people help out with the current set of reports written in Python and available under a free license on GitHub. The whole system needs a redesign/rewrite in my opinion.

Regarding this report specifically, I replied here. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing these. We all really appreciate them and the extra context they give to our editing. One I would like to see back is the ranking by number of articles created. Is there any chance of that one coming back? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The list has not been updated for several days Chrisdoyleorwell (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisdoyleorwell: We know. Please read the comments above. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that updates are back, as of today. --Albany NY (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Albany NY: Please see the post by MZMcBride timed 05:10, 14 May 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noting here that this issue is hopefully now resolved with this change. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot has stopped again. It hasn't run since June 17. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the Labs outage that has affected several scripts and bots. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Nav popups not working, wikEd not working and others. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cannot find myself on here

So.... I have made a total of 6,553 edits so far (6,554 after this one), and if I recall I will at least be at the very end on this list, so does this update on a timed schedule or just at random? Burklemore1 (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: The list is normally updated every 24 hours by a "bot". -- John of Reading (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Some edit counters include page moves in their count; some do not. This report is one of those that don't. You have 41 entries in your move log: some counters will add 82 (41 x 2) to your true edit count because each move causes two actions: the move itself, and the creation of a redirect. So if the 6,554 comes from a counter that includes moves, you will need to wait until it passes about 6,590 and then wait again until about 00:05 (UTC) for the report to be updated. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks to you both for the replies. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: You entered the list today, at position 9949, with 6,555 edits (excluding page moves). --Redrose64 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah excellent, thanks for letting me know Redrose! Burklemore1 (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Can't find my name in the list!!!?

Hi, I have 2,219 edits on Wikipedia yet can't find my name in this list.? Jogi 007 (talk)

Currently the list stops at about 6500 edits. Please continue contributing and you will make it to the list reasonably soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ymblanter, offcourse I am doing it.....................continuously.....Jogi 007 (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jogi don: Thanks for all you've done so far, and good luck. --Rubbish computer 00:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer:Rubbish , You welcomed...........Jogi 007 (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Vanished users

A number of users on this list have "vanished" from Wikipedia, under our Courtesy Vanishing method. As they clearly want to be removed from Wikipedia, I quietly removed all instances of the "vanished users" from this list. I was quite surprised to be reverted with the reason that the "users have to add themselves". Clearly this isn't going to happen, they've left and want nothing more to do with Wikipedia. Could we please ensure that vanished users are redacted on this list? Worm^TT(talk) 08:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Per IAR or common sense or whatever else, I certainly agree that vanished users should be removed from this list. I can't really see any benefit from including "Vanished user [string of random characters]" instead of "[Placeholder]" and the fact that they've chosen to vanish indicates they probably wouldn't want to be included on this list in any way, shape or form. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree as well. That the users in question would choose to be removed from this list were they aware of it is a reasonable presumption, and no public interest is served by having their scrambled usernames listed here. ‑ iridescent 10:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. The current setup (as described in John of Reading's reply in the previous section and Redrose64's reply in the section before that) links someone's stated desire to vanish, to their edit count, to a history of edit counts, leading to their username. It is a prime example of Streisand effect. Bazj (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bazj, the trail will remain; the Anonymous list only determines whether a user appears as Vanished User XYZ or as [Placeholder]. Looking back at the page's history, the first Random User and Vanished User entries were added in April 2011 courtesy of WereSpielChequers with edit summary "opting out some rtvs"; more accumulated over time and then the entries were all removed by Wizardman in November 2014 with the summary "rm disappeared users (their names won't be on the list by default, after all)". Then came the events of today. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, The difference may be between Placeholder and Vanished, but in practice it's a difference between "This is nonsense, count me out" and "I want to leave, don't follow me.". It separates out those who wish to vanish and highlights (and effectively denies) their desire. Bazj (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks BlueMoonset, I appreciate that, I wasn't aware of the history, doesn't change my opinion, but it's interesting to hear. Worm^TT(talk) 13:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Altenmann, who reverted Worm's edit, to get the contrary view. Interested to hear how vanished editors might be expected to add themselves top a list they may never have heard of. Bazj (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are my reasons.

• This is a common interest list. Vanished or not, we have to respect their contributions. Heck we even to respect contributions of banned users. We have to feel sadness and sorrow that some of them abandoned the project, while others step on the path of destruction, but we have to remember good things. The edit list is not some kind of award that can be stripped off. It is statistics (or so I was told long time ago).
• re: would choose to be removed from this list:: Please don't read their minds and don't make decision for them. From what I understand, most of them left not wikipedia, but wikipedian community, which, they felt, was unwelcome to them. And now you reinforcing this negative opinion. Many of them did a lot for wikipedia, I don't think this is forgettable to them. What is more, many of them simply changed their user names, eg. because of harassment. The very fact you see them in the list means they were prolific contributors and hence long-term wikipedians, so in all probability they are perfectly aware of this list.
• re: "I can't really see any benefit" - I see several benefits. respect (memorial, so to say). reminder (what the freaking heck happened they left). Without memory and self-criticism a community is sick.
• "no public interest is served" - leave politicians to speak of public interest with undeniable authority. There is public interest.
• re: with the reason that the "users have to add themselves". Yes. That's the whole point. Opt-out. "and want nothing more to do with Wikipedia" - but we don't remove them from all talk pages. We just change the name. May be they want nothing, but this has nothing to do with us.
• Please notice that my name is first in the list. It is for the reason other than alphabetic. It is because of me this list was created. I did not want somebody involve me in this without my consent. For the same feeling, I disagree someone kicked out without their consent.
• You did not explain what's the damage their names are to the project. "it ain't broken, don't fix it" . I saw some person removed himself from the exclusion list with edit summary "it is dominated by demibots, and I will be comfortably unnoticeable way down the list" . Now, what harm you see in "vanished users", unseen, unless you look for them very hard? - üser:Altenmann >t 14:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• re: "I want to leave, don't follow me." - Irrelevant. You can follow the talk pages and histories. You just don't know past name.
• (BTW your "I want to leave" sample in big bright red was made to look as if it was a drama queen shouting. No. Personally, when I see the sig "vanished", I feel their pain, not vanity.) - üser:Altenmann >t 14:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

tl;dr, right? - üser:Altenmann >t 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The big red was supposed to highlight the Streisand effect of labelling the user as Vanished. So much for that great idea... *sigh* Bazj (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Streisand effect inapplicable: who cares? There is no drama in it for non-involved. And involved ones easily know who's'who anyway. I myself know a handful of "vanished" simply by seeing signatures in some heated discussion involving myself. (And just as easily I can suspect the original identity of new but very experienced accounts) - üser:Altenmann >t 15:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just on the "most of them left not wikipedia, but wikipedian community", I disagree with that statement. I've been one of the crats looking after RTV for nearly a year and very few are "had enough of the community". Far more prevalent is "I'm being harassed, please hide my name", or "I want nothing more to do with Wikipedia at all". Of course the most prevalent is "Request for vanishing" and no reason. Worm^TT(talk) 14:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was not careful in phrasing. That's what I meant and what I mentioned elsewhere as well: people were hiding from community. You, one of 'crats, and the remaining 'crats have better to understand. People don't request vanishing simply because they got cured of wikipediholism. If a person just bored with wikipedia, he quietly goes away. Request for vanishing is a sign of conflict. And please don't tell me they were all troublemakers anyway. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Having read all the above, nothing has changed my opinion away from strongly support re-replacing them with placeholders. I can see no benefit to forcing people to appear on this list other than as (a) as an act of spite ("you didn't obey our rules, now you must pay"), (b) as a badge of shame, or (c) to make some kind of arcane meta-point about how much work has been done by people who have since left Wikipedia, and I think it entirely reasonable to presume that someone who has specifically expressed a desire for anonymity would choose to be removed from WP:WBE had they known about it. Personally, I'd be strongly in favour of deleting this page altogether—it causes a lot of problems for very little benefit—but there are too many people who see it as some kind of high-score table. ‑ iridescent 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  Same here. I do certainly respect that many now-vanished users have helped the project a great deal, but trying to use that as an argument here implies the list is an awards table, leaderboard or some other reward. Edit count does not accurately measure much; being on a list of 'most edits' is not equivalent to "you are one of the top 10,000 most respected people on the site". I don't understand "May be they want nothing, but this has nothing to do with us." — there's a reason it's called courtesy vanishing. It's something that is polite to do, not something that 'crats have to do. This is exactly the same reason we have placeholders: no-one contributing to Wikipedia has the right to prevent people compiling statistics based on them, but it's a courtesy to let people opt out of this list if they don't want to be included in it, no questions asked. WP:VANISH describes the process as being used for someone who "for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits". Replacing their vanished account in this list with "[Placeholder]" seems like a logical extension of this. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a few vanished users to the list a while back, apologies if anyone finds that contentious. I appreciate that some people get renamed due to harassment and even go through cleanstart, but I'm not suggesting that we mark retired accounts with Placeholder. Vanishing is very different to cleanstart, someone who is vanishing wants their username not just renamed but is discarding it and having it renamed to something such as vanished user. Of course some change their mind and come back, but having their vanish account return to its former name would automatically stop them being placeholdered. If we decide to default to marking vanished users as placeholders then it might be an idea to include this in the advice about cleanstart and vanishing. ϢereSpielChequers 18:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that vanished users should be replaced with [Placeholder]. It somewhat defeats the purpose of vanishing to have their new random names-which are in fact placeholders already-to be enumerated here. (Disclosure: Worm That Turned pointed me to this discussion) –xeno^talk 10:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose commingling of "vanished user" with "[Placeholder]" on this list. Each of those descriptive indicators has a specific meaning which is distinct from that of the other. "[Placeholder]" is an active or inactive user who has deliberately chosen not to appear on this list, but is otherwise still discernible as one (albeit still unspecified as to which) of the 74 [as of this writing] Wikipedians listed among those at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous. "Vanished user", on the other hand, was a Wikipedian who chose to leave Wikipedia with an identity which obscures such Wikipedian's original user name. Wikipedians who have been around long enough (to accumulate a sufficient number of edits for appearance here) are presumed to be aware of this list. The fact that none has taken the direct step of requesting a "[Placeholder]" designation seems to indicate that none of the vanished users has considered appearance on this list to be of sufficient importance to take such a step. That said, if any of those on the anonymizing list or on the main list decides to be become a "vanished user" and requests such a label, then such request should be, of course, accommodated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  I think expecting everyone on the list to know about it without any sort of notification is unfair and unrealistic. Who are you to decide that "Wikipedians who have been around long enough ... are presumed to be aware of this list"? And even if they did visit the page long ago, or have some vague recollection that there's a page listing people by number of edits, what makes you think that every one of the 10,000 people on the list is (a) aware of their presence on it and (b) aware that they can opt out?

  But perhaps more to the point, users probably don't think "I must manually remove my name from Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits" when they make a request to vanish. The thought of what will happen to their name on this list probably hasn't crossed their minds. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't find my name on the list

My preferences page says 8,859 edits, yet my name is not on the list. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You are currently listed at position 7827 in the 5001-10000 list. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not updating regularly

MZMcBride, although BernsteinBot (talk · contribs) is still running, and has updated other reports today (such as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count/1–1000), it has failed to update Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000 today. This seems to be happening more frequently - over the last month, there was no update on the following five days: 20 January 2016‎, 18 January 2016‎, 13 January 2016‎, 6 January 2016‎, 27 December 2015‎. Three of these were Wednesdays: is there something else in the cron to run Wednesday morning only, that is tying up resources? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. I imagine the inconsistent report updates are related to Wikimedia Labs instability. If you look at the labs-l mailing list, for example this post or this post, the reported issues seem to align with what we're seeing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The December 2015 labs-l archives also indicate intermittent issues with cron and job queues. Bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Can a log-based 'Edit distribution' graph be added?

Since log plots are made for exactly this kind of data.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This not updating

My position and edit count hasn't changed for 3 days nows.  — Calvin999 10:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes if you see the section two sections above there are problems with Labs and this won't run every day. Don't worry, I don't know of any uses of this list that mean we need it to be refreshed every week. ϢereSpielChequers 11:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Add my name

• Ϣere: How can I add my username here? I've done 6,792 edits until now? Mhhossein (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, you are already in! Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/5001–10000 - position 9950. ϢereSpielChequers 17:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The data is updated daily - if you like, you can track your progress on the sub page Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/9001–10000. GoingBatty (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)