Possible proposal to indicate "excessive single person editing" on any article page, and not to be construed otherwise.
For an article under 250 edits (in all cases excluding vandalism and reversion of vandalism from the count): 60 edits indicates an unusual interest in the topic.
Articles of 251 to 500 edits: 80 is an unusual level of edits. (that is, within a single article which has 251 to 500 total edits excluding vandalism reverts etc.)
Articles of 501 to 1000 edits: 130 is an unusual count.
Articles of 1001 to 2000 edits: 240 is an unusual count.
Articles of 2001 to 5000 edits: 340 is a very high level of edits.
Articles over 5000 edits: 450 is an extraordinary level of edits.
In each case, if the editor has >2.5 times the next highest editor, the issue becomes more stark.
Anyone with any stats hereon is invited most cordially to share them. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- What's the basis for these numbers? How do they distinguish the difference between a dozen minor edits that fix typos and one huge edit that adds a large new section? What documented problem is this proposal trying to solve? Will Beback talk 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for joining in here. The question is twofold as you pose it ... should a person with a ginormous number of minor or trivial edits on a single article be considered as being preoccupied with the article? I suggest that few editors will find 60 typos in an article and fix them one by one in their first 250 edits. How many edits for typos would you consider "unuusually large"? I would aver that where the ginormous number of edits are not trivial that you would concur that such would be unusual behaviour. The second question is easier - there is a reasonable perception that a person who vastly dominates the edits in an article might be excessively committed to that article. Posit a person with 800 edits to an article which has only 900 total edits -- would you find that to be statistically likely and reasonable? Or would you concur that it shows a strong preoccupation with that article? I am again positing that the editor did not correct 900 spelling errors one at a time <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- For this proposal to have a basis in fact, it'd be necessary to show that contributors who make many edits consistently degrade articles. These numbers seem arbitrary and none of this correlates with failure to improve articles. If editors are doing good work then it doesn't matter whether they make 2 edits or 200. People generally get involved in Wikipedia to edit articles of interest. That's not a problem - that's how Wikipedia grew to it's current size. Will Beback talk 22:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. All it needs is to show an unusual number of edits - I assure you that the 60 edits out of 250 edits (excluding vandalism reverts etc. ) is a quite rare number to reach - and the higher numbers even more rare. I submit that where an editor ranks in the top .1% of editor concentration on a given article that it qualifies as "unusual." Perhaps you have a different percentage needed to consider an unusual concentration of edits on a single article? As I made no comment about it "degrading" content of articles, clearly that is a straw issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- If editors with large edit counts are not degrading articles then why would we seek to stop them from editing those articles? Will Beback talk 22:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Find an editor with a high value who reaches these levels within a single article before asserting that any high-value editors would be affected. Right now you are posing very hypothetical questions at best. By the way, if you find a problem editor who reaches these levels in an article, it would be nice to see that person mentioned in your post. I look forward to your results. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say the burden of proof is on the person making the proposal. You haven't shown there's a problem. Will Beback talk 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- What, precisely, do you think the proposal is other than to find some sort of numerical values for clear and obvious excessive posting in a single article by a single editor? I rather think such a statistical basis would meet with your approval, as a matter of fact. Do you feel it is impossible for excessive editing by a single user to occur? Collect (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain this concept of excess editing. Why is it a problem if someone makes 100 or 200 edits to an article? Will Beback talk 01:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- You assert that a person who dominates an article with their own edits is never a problem. That is your right. This proposal, in fact, does not say that preocuppation with an article or topic is "evil" in any way, only that there is some numerical value which would indicate a likelihood of preoccupation with a topic. Is there any level at which you could aver that an editor appears to be so preoccupied? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't asserted anything. I'm asking you to show what problem your proposal seeks to address. Why is being "preoccupied" by an article a problem? Will Beback talk 01:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- If I read you correctly, it is impossible for any editor to be too preoccupied with any topic or article at all, then? I did not use the term "problem" with regard to the establishment of numerical guidelines here - why do you seem to insist then that I make such a statement? Suppose a BLP has 1200 edits with 800 edits from one person - would you consider it at least to be unusual and statistically unlikely? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you care how many edits a person makes to an article? What difference does it make? Will Beback talk 02:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- You elide the question - if a person makes (say) 800 edits on a BLP out of 1200 total edits on that page, would you say that was an excessive number, or would you aver it was a reasonable number proportionately? Yes or no would quite suffice here -- I am not making a judgement here in seeking to know what numbers would generally be considered by editors to be "excessive" or showing a "preoccupation" with a topic. This is a question asking page, not a fault-finding page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- What makes 100 or 1000 edits "excessive"? If edits are compliant with policies I don't see how the quantity of them is a problem. Is it "insufficient editing" if an editor only makes a few edits? Will Beback talk 02:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- In short you decline to answer, right? 800 edits on a BLP would not indicate any preocupation with the subject as far as you are concerned. Thanks for giving an answer by posting as you have. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- If they're good edits then the more the better. You haven't shown any reason why we should be concerned with the number of edits a person makes to an article. Will Beback talk 07:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- In short you decline to answer, right? 800 edits on a BLP would not indicate any preocupation with the subject as far as you are concerned. Thanks for giving an answer by posting as you have. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you care how many edits a person makes to an article? What difference does it make? Will Beback talk 02:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- If I read you correctly, it is impossible for any editor to be too preoccupied with any topic or article at all, then? I did not use the term "problem" with regard to the establishment of numerical guidelines here - why do you seem to insist then that I make such a statement? Suppose a BLP has 1200 edits with 800 edits from one person - would you consider it at least to be unusual and statistically unlikely? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't asserted anything. I'm asking you to show what problem your proposal seeks to address. Why is being "preoccupied" by an article a problem? Will Beback talk 01:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- You assert that a person who dominates an article with their own edits is never a problem. That is your right. This proposal, in fact, does not say that preocuppation with an article or topic is "evil" in any way, only that there is some numerical value which would indicate a likelihood of preoccupation with a topic. Is there any level at which you could aver that an editor appears to be so preoccupied? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain this concept of excess editing. Why is it a problem if someone makes 100 or 200 edits to an article? Will Beback talk 01:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- What, precisely, do you think the proposal is other than to find some sort of numerical values for clear and obvious excessive posting in a single article by a single editor? I rather think such a statistical basis would meet with your approval, as a matter of fact. Do you feel it is impossible for excessive editing by a single user to occur? Collect (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say the burden of proof is on the person making the proposal. You haven't shown there's a problem. Will Beback talk 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Find an editor with a high value who reaches these levels within a single article before asserting that any high-value editors would be affected. Right now you are posing very hypothetical questions at best. By the way, if you find a problem editor who reaches these levels in an article, it would be nice to see that person mentioned in your post. I look forward to your results. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- If editors with large edit counts are not degrading articles then why would we seek to stop them from editing those articles? Will Beback talk 22:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. All it needs is to show an unusual number of edits - I assure you that the 60 edits out of 250 edits (excluding vandalism reverts etc. ) is a quite rare number to reach - and the higher numbers even more rare. I submit that where an editor ranks in the top .1% of editor concentration on a given article that it qualifies as "unusual." Perhaps you have a different percentage needed to consider an unusual concentration of edits on a single article? As I made no comment about it "degrading" content of articles, clearly that is a straw issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(od) "Good edits"? Why would any editor need to have a substantially disproportionate number of edits on a BLP? Might it be that they are making sure a specific view is presented fully? That the one editor's view of the BLP would outweigh the other editors who make smaller numbers of edits? If that were the case, would you find a problem? Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's a simple thing. Let's say I write an article about a fungus, or a highway, or a WWII battle. I create a comprehensive article, the best online or in print on this topic. Some gnomes come through and make minor fixes, but otherwise the article is all mine. What's the problem if I've made 95% of the content edits? Not everyone is interested in every microzome or spur road. Will Beback talk 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- And it takes you hundreds of edits to make a 5,000 word article? Seems like you are placing one word at a time at that rate. The query I posed, moreover, was in regard to a BLP. Under what circumstances would find a "preoccupation" with a BLP to be evident? 10% of the edits on an article with 5,000 edits? 20%? 50%? 95%? Most of the articles on fungi, by the way, have no such problem with excessive edits. The main Fungus article has a grand total of 3,200 edits, with the most major editor hitting 319 -- well under the numbers posited above. Almost all of the individual articles have under fifty edits total each (a couple hit the 350 total mark - with absolutely no editors that I can find exceeding the numbers posited above there either) ! Might you try a real example -- say Lyndon Larouche or the like? I think if you check the numbers of edits there that you will find some editors with a clear preocuppation on the BLP. Or do you feel that such editors are only making "good edits" on the BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Anent this see the policy of WP:OWN where it is clear that
- But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it.
- Would you accept that a strong preoccupation with a given article or topic might be so construed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's no evidence here that any number of good edits is a bad thing. As for the LaRouche article, last time I counted the editor who'd made the most edits to that page is HK, despite his ban years ago. Is he preoccupied? More like obsessed. If you want more examples of "preoccupied" editing, take a look at USS Iowa turret explosion or Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), where a much clearer pattern can be seen. However I think you're using the wrong metric. If your concern is with editors who become too interested in a narrow topic then it'd be better to compare those edits to their editing of other topics. For example, my editing to all LaRouche topic counts for less than 5% of my editing. Precoccupied? Hardly.
- (It'd also be interesting to look at the problem of editors who spend more time arguing than editing. I know of one editor who makes far more edits to talk pages and noticeboards about disputes than he makes to articles.)
- As for possessiveness, that's not good but one doesn't have to make a lot of edits to exhibit WP:OWNERSHIP, which is already a well-described issue. Will Beback talk 21:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Examining the Iowa turret page: Cla68 falls precisely into the category I would question on that topic. I do not think it is a BLP, however, to any significant extent, and is thus a tad less important in the overall scheme of things. Jayen also appears to fall into the same category on the Bhagwan article which is a BLP. Thank you for pointing out those splendid examples of what I would call a preoccupation with a specific topic or person. I think you see the issue more clearly now. I am also pleased you looked at Jimbo's edit history with its paucity of article edits. I also found some editors who seem to upload images etc. rather than edit excessively on a given article. My concern is professional as I was gainfully employed as a sysop for a goodly period of time, and had contractual obligations which give me experience suited for the broad range of activity here - including, as you note, article editing, vandalism patrol, XfD discussions, policy development discussions and so on, as well as activity on other projects under WMF, including strategic planning. Many editors edit articles far less than I, to be sure. Now do you recognize that the problem of preoccupation can and does exist? Cheers - and I am glad you were able to find such examples - did you look at many editors in that goal? Cirt certainly qualifies on the notorious "santorum" article, on the bacon paean article, truth in numbers, the "hated family" article, Dan Savage bibliography, the Gomorrah one and so on. If I recall correctly, you have a bunch as well. How many did you find for Cla and Jayen, might I ask? I would like to know better how widespread such activity is. You may have noted that I have no such articles, to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Could you show how Cla68's or Jayen466's editing has harmed those articles, and why we should seek to throttle their efforts? Will Beback talk 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show me where I have suggested "throttling" anyone here? Or said that some sort of specific "harm" needs ensue preoccupation with an article or person? I fear you are making a dispute for the sake of making a dispute. Might you instead furnish me the information I asked for - that is naming the editors whom you checked and what you found as I do not wish to undertake that task right now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- So what's the problem that we're trying to address here? Why is preoccupation a problem if the editing itself is good? Will Beback talk 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The objective is exactly what the top of the page says - it is to establish numerical criteria for indications of excessive editing by a single person. I thought that was pretty succinctly stated at the outset. Does this new wording elucidate it for you? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a problem with making many good edits that comply with policy? If so, what is the "problem of preoccupation"?
- Let me ask my first question again: What's the basis for these numbers? Will Beback talk 00:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I fear you did not read what I wrote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I read it, but since you've never indicated how you arrived at your proposed numbers and never showed why editing articles is a bad thing, I'm still mystified by this proposal. Will Beback talk 00:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I arrived at the numbers empirically after reeviewing some of the data I had on hand. The numbers represented about 20% over the highest number of edits found in about 1% of the articles which had significant numbers of edits by single editors. The counting tool is [1]. The 20% added margin was an arbitrary factor which is why I specifically asked for opinions here. Note my specific request Anyone with any stats hereon is invited most cordially to share them. Thanks. Is this clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you picked a bunch of articles, and then saw how many edits had been made to them. You took the highest number then added an arbitrary factor to arrive at the final number. Which articles did you look at, and how did you select them? Will Beback talk 01:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The "bunch" approached two thousand articles (this started with the 'Climate Change' edit overlap bit examining the articles edited in common by certain editors, then included some looking at ArbCom member edited articles, etc.(). I rather think "bunch" might be an understatement. The 20% adition is indeed an arbitrary factor - but one which is commonly used when dealing with such empirical data. I trust you have a background in statistics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, you've spent a lot of time on this. Why not just pick a simple percentage, like 50% or 95%? Will Beback talk 02:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Counting it up - over a hundred hours just getting the "Climate Change" overlap stats - you might recall the discussions thereon, and the fact that it was overlaps on user talk pages which ended up being a clear pattern. The article edit count tool is fairly fast, so I looked at a pretty good sample of article pages as well, and looked at the 99% level for number of edits/ total number of edits (very few articles with large number of edits had one editor be responsible for over 8% of the total - the articles with smaller numbers of edits sometimes showed more than 8%, hence the apparent greater percentage for such less active articles - many newer articles show a substantial reliance on one or two editors, but it would be unfair to speak of excessive edits on new articles, as I am sure you would concur). I also noted that some articles were targets of vandals, hence my noting that such edits properly should not be counted, but the article tool does not, alas, separate those out. Which editors did you examine? Or did you look at articles to find the examples you gave? Neither article, of course, showed up in regard to Climate Change or any BLPs I examined. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- What made you think that the editing of the articles you were looking at was excessive, as opposed to just being more-than-average? Will Beback talk 03:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Excessive" is not just "more than average". It is related to the word "exceed" as a matter of fact. It means "going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree." I would suggest that editing on an article going well beyond the highest 1% for top editor on a page is, indeed, "beyond the usual" by a few miles. Apparently your mileage varies. And I would also suggest that such levels of edits on single articles is not "necessary" either by a few miles. Wikipedia has no "limits" but I think that is up for discussion in other venues, to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- What made you think that the editing of the articles you were looking at was excessive, as opposed to just being more-than-average? Will Beback talk 03:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Counting it up - over a hundred hours just getting the "Climate Change" overlap stats - you might recall the discussions thereon, and the fact that it was overlaps on user talk pages which ended up being a clear pattern. The article edit count tool is fairly fast, so I looked at a pretty good sample of article pages as well, and looked at the 99% level for number of edits/ total number of edits (very few articles with large number of edits had one editor be responsible for over 8% of the total - the articles with smaller numbers of edits sometimes showed more than 8%, hence the apparent greater percentage for such less active articles - many newer articles show a substantial reliance on one or two editors, but it would be unfair to speak of excessive edits on new articles, as I am sure you would concur). I also noted that some articles were targets of vandals, hence my noting that such edits properly should not be counted, but the article tool does not, alas, separate those out. Which editors did you examine? Or did you look at articles to find the examples you gave? Neither article, of course, showed up in regard to Climate Change or any BLPs I examined. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, you've spent a lot of time on this. Why not just pick a simple percentage, like 50% or 95%? Will Beback talk 02:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The "bunch" approached two thousand articles (this started with the 'Climate Change' edit overlap bit examining the articles edited in common by certain editors, then included some looking at ArbCom member edited articles, etc.(). I rather think "bunch" might be an understatement. The 20% adition is indeed an arbitrary factor - but one which is commonly used when dealing with such empirical data. I trust you have a background in statistics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you picked a bunch of articles, and then saw how many edits had been made to them. You took the highest number then added an arbitrary factor to arrive at the final number. Which articles did you look at, and how did you select them? Will Beback talk 01:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I arrived at the numbers empirically after reeviewing some of the data I had on hand. The numbers represented about 20% over the highest number of edits found in about 1% of the articles which had significant numbers of edits by single editors. The counting tool is [1]. The 20% added margin was an arbitrary factor which is why I specifically asked for opinions here. Note my specific request Anyone with any stats hereon is invited most cordially to share them. Thanks. Is this clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I read it, but since you've never indicated how you arrived at your proposed numbers and never showed why editing articles is a bad thing, I'm still mystified by this proposal. Will Beback talk 00:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I fear you did not read what I wrote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The objective is exactly what the top of the page says - it is to establish numerical criteria for indications of excessive editing by a single person. I thought that was pretty succinctly stated at the outset. Does this new wording elucidate it for you? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- So what's the problem that we're trying to address here? Why is preoccupation a problem if the editing itself is good? Will Beback talk 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show me where I have suggested "throttling" anyone here? Or said that some sort of specific "harm" needs ensue preoccupation with an article or person? I fear you are making a dispute for the sake of making a dispute. Might you instead furnish me the information I asked for - that is naming the editors whom you checked and what you found as I do not wish to undertake that task right now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Could you show how Cla68's or Jayen466's editing has harmed those articles, and why we should seek to throttle their efforts? Will Beback talk 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Examining the Iowa turret page: Cla68 falls precisely into the category I would question on that topic. I do not think it is a BLP, however, to any significant extent, and is thus a tad less important in the overall scheme of things. Jayen also appears to fall into the same category on the Bhagwan article which is a BLP. Thank you for pointing out those splendid examples of what I would call a preoccupation with a specific topic or person. I think you see the issue more clearly now. I am also pleased you looked at Jimbo's edit history with its paucity of article edits. I also found some editors who seem to upload images etc. rather than edit excessively on a given article. My concern is professional as I was gainfully employed as a sysop for a goodly period of time, and had contractual obligations which give me experience suited for the broad range of activity here - including, as you note, article editing, vandalism patrol, XfD discussions, policy development discussions and so on, as well as activity on other projects under WMF, including strategic planning. Many editors edit articles far less than I, to be sure. Now do you recognize that the problem of preoccupation can and does exist? Cheers - and I am glad you were able to find such examples - did you look at many editors in that goal? Cirt certainly qualifies on the notorious "santorum" article, on the bacon paean article, truth in numbers, the "hated family" article, Dan Savage bibliography, the Gomorrah one and so on. If I recall correctly, you have a bunch as well. How many did you find for Cla and Jayen, might I ask? I would like to know better how widespread such activity is. You may have noted that I have no such articles, to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- By your standard, two of today's DYK authors have been "excessive single person editing": do you think that The Handley family of Sleaford and Seacology are problematic? This kind of editing pattern is not rare, I expect a few per day of DYKs is not unusual. Do you believe these two articles/primary editors deserve this new label you propose? If so, what is it about their method of editing do you find more troubling than the methods used by others to develop new articles? If you do not think these two deserve your proposed label, how useful would your metric be if such false positives are common? --Noren (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Statistically well beyond the usual - yes. And that is the question - not whether this page proposes anything more than establishing some standards for what seems on its face to be preoccupation by single editors on articles. (note that vandalism reverts are not counted in this "metric" as you call it) Do you find that number of edits to be typical overall on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Checking the "seacology" article shows indeed a huge percentage by one user, who appears to have a great fondness for lemurs. Indeed, one might say a predilection for the topic far greater than average editors and typical topics. On the Handleys, a person who has a user page devoted to the topic is likely to be relatively preoccupied with the topic compared with average editors - certainly an exceptional interest in what appears to be a rather unexceptional family as such, with bluelinked articles being quite minor political figures. In point of fact, just about one would expect from someone who is very interested in the family, as there is little of note about its members <g>. Cheers and thanks for such nice examples. Collect (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I expect you are correct that these editors have a far greater interest than the average person in the topic of the article they brought to DYK. The same could be said for nearly all the primary authors in DYK, that is to be expected for someone who undertakes a massive expansion of an article at the current stage of wikipedia maturity. I hope that you would agree that in and of itself this isn't a problem, but is instead a practical requirement for editors to work on obscure topics. Should the authors of the two articles I mentioned earlier be classified differently than the other 16 authors of DYK articles for August 16? For an example of another style of DYK editing, Neoephemera antiqua was created with an initial edit summary, "Move from user page to live article". Should the author who edits in that way be classified differently because they chose to make their initial edits in a sandbox rather than 'in place' in article space? --Noren (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say anyone should be penalized - just that huge numbers of edits showing a disproportionate interest ina person or topic might be studied/ IIRC, there have been problems with some DYK collectors in the past - including charges of improper edits, copyright problems, etc.? Did any of the problem editors show excessive interest in a topic at all? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I expect you are correct that these editors have a far greater interest than the average person in the topic of the article they brought to DYK. The same could be said for nearly all the primary authors in DYK, that is to be expected for someone who undertakes a massive expansion of an article at the current stage of wikipedia maturity. I hope that you would agree that in and of itself this isn't a problem, but is instead a practical requirement for editors to work on obscure topics. Should the authors of the two articles I mentioned earlier be classified differently than the other 16 authors of DYK articles for August 16? For an example of another style of DYK editing, Neoephemera antiqua was created with an initial edit summary, "Move from user page to live article". Should the author who edits in that way be classified differently because they chose to make their initial edits in a sandbox rather than 'in place' in article space? --Noren (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Statistically well beyond the usual - yes. And that is the question - not whether this page proposes anything more than establishing some standards for what seems on its face to be preoccupation by single editors on articles. (note that vandalism reverts are not counted in this "metric" as you call it) Do you find that number of edits to be typical overall on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Checking the "seacology" article shows indeed a huge percentage by one user, who appears to have a great fondness for lemurs. Indeed, one might say a predilection for the topic far greater than average editors and typical topics. On the Handleys, a person who has a user page devoted to the topic is likely to be relatively preoccupied with the topic compared with average editors - certainly an exceptional interest in what appears to be a rather unexceptional family as such, with bluelinked articles being quite minor political figures. In point of fact, just about one would expect from someone who is very interested in the family, as there is little of note about its members <g>. Cheers and thanks for such nice examples. Collect (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)