Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Search indexing for the 3,793+ names, other issues

Greetings,

The general idea of this list makes sense...you can find out if another user is an established editor or not. However, it quickly becomes unweildy after the top few names. For example, I know that user 'Extremely Sexy' has over 14,000 edits, but I don't see his name there.

• There is no such user. `'Míkka 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bart_Versieck (if you check his 'talk' page, that name is still on there...I think it's been changed to 'Bart Versieck' to avoid controversy).Ryoung122 02:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No there is not. Please keep in mind that English language has a peculiar thing called "past tense".`'Míkka 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is to ensure that the edit counts are COMPARABLE? If I add my count (6.426+) for today and others have a count from a month ago, it's not comparable, right?

• The list is created automatically from a single snapshot of the database, not by manual addition. `'Míkka 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I understand that now. In fact, I was on the list (I think 5,892 edits, around #3209 or #3193).Ryoung122 02:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Last, I respect the idea of anonymous users, but PLACEHOLDERS should be used...otherwise the list quickly becomes meaningless. If someone is claiming to be 'one of the top 30 editors on Wikipedia' (what led me to this page in the first place) but anonymous editors with 77,000 edits remove themselves, that allows the egotistical to think more of themselves than perhaps they should otherwise...myself included.

• The someone "top 30" will remain in "top 30". If they will think them is top 20 and this makes them more happy, may god of all wikis bless him. What is more, removal of placeholders does not change the relative placement of the rest of the bunch. `'Míkka 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes it does. I got moved up from '3209' to '3193' just from 16 editors deciding to become anonymous. But I don't like to move up that way...it's like 'cheating'. Further, you know that really you could be lower, so what's the point? I'd rather know where I am, for real, or not know at all.Ryoung122 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cheatin" whom? Everyone is up. Do you really feel good that you are below someone who uses AWB to hit 12 edits per minute? Are you going to use AWB with the sole purpose to make 15 edits per minute to beat this guy? Wikipedia is encyclopedia not a pissing contest. `'Míkka 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I do strongly advise someone take a pro-active approach to this. One idea is to not allow 'new' additions but have a 'registration list' for editors that think they may have been missed. There also needs to be a search function. And again, a placeholder for the anonymous crowd.Ryoung122 00:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on the rest of this, but the user you seek (User:Bart Versieck) is #1077 on the September 12, list. Cheers, CP 01:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a kind of an insider joke? `'Míkka 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have NO idea why Bart chose that nickname, or why he stopped using it very recently.Ryoung122 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The question was not about this. Since you failed to mention "Bart" I had no idea where this name came from (since it did not ocur to me that this may be a renamed user). In the future, please avoi `'Míkka 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Now that we are at this, in the future, if us run across a renamed user, please avoid mentioning both old and new names in the open text. The user could have had privacy concerns (e.g. someone figured out the real identity and harassed). Of course all information is public here, but it is not our job to make life easier for identity abusers. `'Míkka 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbering and User:Place holder

Please stop This is a numbered list. If you take out the anon accounts, then you will make the data inaccurate. Please do not do this. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if it is inaccurate? But even better, why don't we simply have the list order alphabetically. That, besides deletion, would solve it. Garion96 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I care. Who cares who cares? This is a report on Wikipedia about Wikipedia; why do you want it to be inaccurate? This is publicly-available information that has just been listed by someone using a dump of the public-available records. If you don't want anyone to know how much you've edited for some reason, edit anonymously. I don't even know what "it" is in you last sentence. If you want to convert this to a sortable table, that would be handy. Also, whoever reverted it last left in a place holder. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I haven't removed my name from the list, so I personally don't care if my name is in it or not. I just find this list utterly unimportant. That it is publicly available doesn't make it useful. "It" btw, refers to the reverting of this list lately. I ordered the list alphabetically now. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, I was reverted within two minutes. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry I took so long. The title of the article is "List of Wikipedians by number of edits", not by alphabetic order. Why not create a separate article, or make this one a sortable table, if the goal is to provide an alphabetically sorted list. Alansohn 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"This is publicly-available information" -- This was not publically available information until someone decided to make it public after processing the dump, removing bots, sorting, etc., i.e., after doing original research with the publicly-available data. I even don't have any reasons to believe that the data processing was done correctly. What is more, this original research does not have anything to do with the purpose of wikipedia, which is writing encyclopedia. That said, I refuse to take part in someone's personal vanity games of dubious credibility, verifiablity and any reasonable meaning it terms of quantity, not to say quality of contribution.

A famous Polish humorist-cartoonist Zbigniew Lengren had the following statistics about himself in the short bio on the back cover of one book:

• Age: 49
• Children: 3
• Wives: 1
• Pets: 5
• Books published: 47
• -----
• Total: 105

This "List of wikipedians" is exactly this: ~5,000 lines of "Total: 105" Very precise but meaningless number. `'Míkka 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research?' According to the definition provided at the beginning of the article, this page is not original research, because it is "research that is exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." This list is simply a compilation of the dumps (freely available, by their vary nature) and a comparison of that information with the list of users (also freely available to anyone who wants to look.) If you don't want to be involved, then don't. No one objects to you not being involved. If you don't trust Rich for some reason, then don't. No one objects to you not being skeptical of Rich. You'll note that there are many pages on Wikipedia that don't explicitly or directly have to do with the actual process of writing an encyclopedia (e.g. WP:BJAODN.) I have no idea where you got the idea that this is a vanity game, or why you continue to claim that while the creator of the list is making concessions to you. Furthermore, there are no doubts about its credibility (it's a list that makes no claims other than those of the server logs), verifiability (download the dump yourself if you want to verify it), or quality (except when you delete users' names and deliberately falsify the rankings.) If you find the number meaningless, that's fine. Clearly, you don't, since you've expended so much effort. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I do, but also I find this list grossly misleading, i.e., distructive, in lieu of other, more equitable and fair metrics. A more stupid and lame metric would only be the number of times I logged into wikipedia. Any ideas for deeper lameness? `'Míkka 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointless That doesn't respond to the substance of anything I said. You made the allegation that this is original research; it's not. This list is not misleading, it does not destroy anything, and someone else just might like it, so what is it to you? For someone who doesn't care, you seem to care a lot. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Non editing editors edit count increasing

I just found three editors who have not edited since March/April and yet their edit count is still increasing. How is that possible? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea Can you prove this? Have you checked Special:Contributions? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If deleted pages are restored, edit counts of retired editors can go up. I'm fairly certain that the counts on this page don't include deleted edits. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be including deleted edits. I just went through the deleted edits of the editor that gained 5000 edits since August. They had about 6500 entries in there and I noticed that not all of them were red links. If the blue links are deducted from the total of 6500 then it might come back down to 5000 actual deleted edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting "vandalism" and edit warring

The behavior of some editors here is completely inappropriate. At three different places it says that editors may remove themselves from the list, and should not be reverted.

• Mikka removes himself, ST47 reverts with a vandalism edit summary. Do you have any idea how wrong that is?
• ^demon and Moreschi remove themselves, Koavf reverts in the name of "accuracy."
• Addition of placeholders, Moreschi reverts, Koavf reverts, SqeakBox reverts, Ryoung122 reverts with the edit summary BUT there SHOULD be a placeholder. Otherwise, there shouldn't be a list with rankings. (he is this close to being right on this one.
• How about 4 reverts over 3 days edit warring with someone who wants to be left off? [1] [2] [3] [4]

Do you get the picture? Also remember how Esperanza, BJAODN both ended up. First, someone nominated them for deletion and everyone said, keep, this is great. Then a second nomination where people said "keep, but reform", then a third nomination that ended up, "reformation failed, delete or mark historic." You're on strike two. Edit warring over this is really really stupid, obnoxious, and disruptive. You have two choices; either respect editors' wish to not be listed, or say, "Fuck you, GFDL, you don't own your contribs" and ignore all such requests. How long do you think this page would survive then? Thatcher131 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comment incredulous. Please consider 'editing' your language.

First, I disagree with you on many levels of analysis. IF this user, Demon, simply wanted to delete himself, why did he delete a lot of other persons also? Hence, even a compromise solution...him deleting himself and leaving other anonymous persons as 'placeholders'...was rejected.

Second, this list has the problem of, say, 'everyone must be counted in the census, except those that don't want to.' Well, guess what? Fairly soon a sizeable number of people aren't counted, and the government's ability to govern is impaired.

Third, there are three differing viewpoints here: one, this list is informational. Two, this list is an ego-trip. Three, this list is a complete waste. In regards to these arguments, if we simply allow everyone to modify this list from its factual creation then it quickly becomes garbage and useless. I, for one, don't see it as an 'ego-trip' to get 'promoted' on the list when someone else chooses to erase their name. OK, be anonymous. Fine. But don't remove the placeholder. Why? Because you are not just affecting YOUR own place; you are altering everyone below you. And for that, it is incredibly selfish to claim that you 'own' not just your edit count but also the factual position of you and everyone below you.

Fourth, if we remember the 'Wizard of Oz' movie line: 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'...we find that, in reality, often the most powerful are those that wield power and authority behind the scenes: the Kingmaker, the Puppetmaster. Thus, it may be that many that don't want to be listed are instead more concerned with maintaining hidden power than with the alleged higher motive of simply being meek/bashful.

Fifth, I'd rather have no list at all than have a list that is utterly corrupted.

Sixth, I didn't make changes to engage in an 'edit war.' I do NOTE that some people have argued that "I don't want to be listed and it appears that 'placeholder' isn't going to be used." But it turns out that just one or two people are deleting 'placeholders' without discussion, without consideration, without compromise...and worse of all, by 'batching' (or claiming that an edit is done for one reason...to hide one's name...but really another...). If the issue really were simply hiding one's edit count, why delete a lot of other people as well?

It seems we could 'establish' a compromise or consensus here. However, instead of that, I see name-calling and the like: "stupid, obnoxious, disruptive". Hello? Who is the one here who is really being 'stupid, obnoxious, and disruptive'? Making dictatorial changes while breaking rules hardly appears to be an attempt to avoid disruption. Deleting other persons while claiming only that one wants to delete oneself, likewise, fails the test of respect for other persons.Ryoung122 10:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Why delete other peole as well?" These people expressed their will to be deleted from the list. Why don't start from the question "why re-add them in batch?" What a hypocrisy. YOu restore them in batch and then request all of them waste their time to each come and individually "reconfirm" their will. We, as a group, are not in your pissing contest whatever justification for your vanity you invent. Period. `'Míkka 15:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User Mikka, I DID NOT START THIS PAGE, OK? Neither did I create this list. Neither did I insist that everyone 'individually reconfirm' their desire to 'not be listed.' Rather, I along with quite a number of other editors insisted that, if the list is to be done, it should be done from a factual, fair approach that attempts to minimize personal biases. First, when I DID revert the plan was to replace anyone's name who didn't want to be listed with 'placeholder'...but NO ONE indicated who didn't want to be listed (except for one single editor who I won't name here), instead going to a 'mass-revert' edit war which, in reality, does not respect the opinions of others or abide by the concept of attempting to 'build consensus' through negotiation (indicating your position, listening to the other side's position, and then finding a solution where both sides give a little). Not only that, most of the 'deleted' entries were in fact already renamed to 'placeholder', and User X indicated that he would be OK with using placeholders, but by bundling his own edit with that of many others, he simply attached a 'poison pill' and a threat, hardly in the spirit of building concensus (neither do I see this as a 'fun' page...what's 'fun' about it?). Second, to refer to this page using foul language is inappropriate. This page has nothing to do with urination. Third, if it were about 'ego' then wouldn't I favor the list that has me the highest on it? Fourth, unlike you I am able to qualitatively process 'quantitative' information. I know, for example, that 'edit count' is but one factor in measuring an editor's contributions. The quality of ideas, the relative importance of the information added, the likelihood of that information being kept, and the 'ripple effect' of one editor's edits inspiring others, all serve to indicate an editor's relative worth. For example, on THIS article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_living_supercentenarians

I make suggestions, and other editors follow up with the edits. Why? Because as someone who manages quite a bit of information for a large variety of organizations...Georgia State University, Boston University, the New England Centenarian Study, the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, the Social Security Administration, Guinness World Records, the Gerontology Research Group, the Supercentenarian Research Foundation, www.emporis.com, etc etc, I don't have the time nor the inclination to make minor, everyday edits such as making sure that a person's 'daily age count' or 'daily age ranking' is updated every single day. If user Bart Versieck feels the need to do so, and has an edit count of 14,000 (more than twice mine) does that make him more 'important' or better yet, more 'vain'? Or does it, instead, give him a nice little reward to admit that no task is too small to be rewarded (and remember, 'deleted edits' are removed from the totals, so if someone adds bad information, it doesn't count)? Perhaps the real vanity is your insistence to 'wreck' the whole project, rather than respecting the concept that 'your rights end where others' begin.' So no, I don't expect you to have to be on this list, but why is it still a problem if your entry were replaced with 'placeholder'? Because the key there is NOT really to honor the 'placeholder' but to be able to quickly and succinctly judge how voluminous and editor's contributions have been, relative to everyone else's. It is akin to counting 'plate appearances' in baseball. While simply having a plate appearance doesn't mean one hit a home run or even a single, it is not too much to conclude that if someone led the league in plate appearances, they must be doing something right.

Ryoung122 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Page updates

How often is this list updated? Is it automated? Can anyone do it? Last update was 5 weeks ago.18:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Updates are arbitrary in regards to time and are sporadic. They are not automated. I personally do not know how to do it, but I expect an update should not be too far away. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a box at the top of the page that shows how the list is updated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's in hide mode, BUT one needs TOOLSERVER access to run it, that's not most of us. Rlevse 11:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC, may editors remove themselves or not?

There has been some edit warring and reverting here lately over whether or not editors may remove themselves from this list. Some editors do not want to be on this list because it fosters editcountitis and an inappropriate sense of competition, because number of edits does not equate to quality, and for other reasons. Other editors argue that users do not own their contributions and have no right to ask to be left off, that other edit counters exist so this page is no big deal, that a ranked list is useless if it is incomplete, and other reasons. Despite multiple notices that editors may remove themselves and should not be reverted, that is exactly what have been happening, extensively. We need to determin community consensus for whether editors may or may not remove their names from this list. Thatcher131 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, people shouldn't be able to remove themselves or others from this list, as this is not how it is done on any other list on Wikipedia, article namespace or otherwise, and it makes this list less useful. Also per my comments in the MFD. --W.marsh 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to have a proposal made and an 'arbitration' set up, for persons to vote on this and make a decision. I note, for example, the issue of whether a person should be able to decide whether a public figure can delete their own Wikipedia article (the decision was no). However, that does not preclude the person deleting their own 'user page'. I personally favor a compromise, whereby if someone wants to remain anonymous, fine; but we should at least have a 'placeholder' inserted to indicate the edit count, and so that their removal of names doesn't affect everyone else's list ranking. To do otherwise is to allow for a 'monkeywrench' approach. I note that the argument for the ability to delete one's own listing is that one 'owns' their own edit count and user ID history. But if that is such, then shouldn't I 'own' my ranking? Why should person A's edits affect not just Person A but everyone else below them on the list? Second, and even more ominously, the ability to anonymously hide enormous quantities of information that has affected the public's education would be seriously detrimental to the concept of the free exchange of ideas. We need to be able to balance 'privacy and respect' with the concept of not having 'puppetmasters of control'. As we know, 'knowledge is power' and if person A keeps their 'trade secrets' secret, akin to Microsoft withholding information from competitors, then Wikipedia moves dangerously toward issues of 'oligarchy' and 'anti-trust.' Of course, all these ideas are more theoretical than real, a sort of 'virtual-reality' video game where we have to make complex decisions affecting multiple situations and persons.

In a nutshell: the current format is hopelessly biased in favor of disinformation and 'divide and conquer' power plays. Unless/until a compromise is worked out that includes the valid use of placeholders, as well as safeguards against false/exaggerated claimants, then it really would be better not to have this list at all. But since some don't agree with that, as indicated by the 'no consensus' vote for deletion, instead I added a 'NPOV' tag which should remain unless/until their is a fair and equitable resolution of this issue that addresses multiple points of view and concerns.Ryoung122 08:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• refuse to vote. This activity is not related to the task of creation of wikipedia. This is someone's personal wikifun and should not be governed by rules of creation of encyclopedia. And I will be removing my name until I get banned from wikipedia, then you may do whatever you want. I refuse to be a sheep in a flock driven by someone's vanity. That someone put a tag "lame war" is despicable disrespect to fellow wikipedians who refuse to take part in this pissing contest. `'Míkka 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• (5 x ec) Mikka, nobody is calling this a vote. And use the damn preview button. First off, there are many useful purposes this page serves - I don't think it's going to be deleted any time soon. So let's assume it will exist in some form, and discuss what form that will be. My opinion is that by clicking that "save page" button, you, as it says, "agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". Your editing is publicly available, as are many statistics derived from it. As all these statistics are publicly and freely available, people may use them to draw any conclusion they see fit, and my choice would be to prevent any name removals, protect the page, and block any admin who embarks on some stupid self-aggrandizing campaign to remove their name from the list by edit-warring on it.

However, this entire morass could be avoided if someone would take the GFDL data dump, process it, and host the entire list externally, uncensored, so people cannot edit war to get their name removed for whatever reason (in my opinion there's no good reason, but I understand others differ on this). If I had the technical knowhow, I would gladly do so. Neil ☎ 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• " use the damn preview button" - bug off. FUI preview button does not help me. I have certain problems: with vision, attention, English language, computer, etc. What is your problem? You don't like I have lagre edit count because of this? Cure yourself from editcountitis then harass other people. `'Míkka 17:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• That was a little rude, and I apologise, but it was out of a frustration at getting edit conflicted five times, not because I believe you're trying to conflate your edit count in some way. Neil ☎ 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No prob. `'Míkka 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your suggestion of storing externally sounds acceptable for me. Storing it within wikipedia ascribes it an "official" flavor despite its inherent stupidity, which is even worse than the laughable but widespread practice to judge the performance of a programmer by the SLOC count. `'Míkka 17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I find it rather odd that someone would edit war over removal of an editor's name... by said editor, in the Wikipedia space. If someone wants off the list, let them be off the list. Personally I myself am not to keen on being listed with an edit count.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• My own view is that precisely because there are other edit counters, this particular ranked list serves no vital or irreplaceable purpose, and therefore as a courtesy it should have an opt-out. Courtesy, of course, meaning that sometimes it is good to be nice to other people even when not strictly required by the letter of policy or process. Thatcher131 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We have other edit counters, but we don't have any other ones that shows a list of users. I don't think there's anybody who really believes that an editor's value to Wikipedia is judged by the number of edits (oh, for a "decent-edit counter"), but it is interesting, and it does become less accurate, and hence of less value as an interesting statistical piece, if people start removing their name. Neil ☎ 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "there's anybody who really believes", etc..., I am afraid you are mistaken. First, edit count does play role in certain formal policies, and I have no doubt that quite a few nominees for adminship in thei zeal to grab a piece of steer frantically scrambled for edit count. I have no doubt that quite a few people salivate with their edit count posted on their user page climbing up. I have no problems with people's petty vanities. After all, money, curiosity, and vanity are the major driving forces of human civilization. But I am strongly against of any hints of institutionalizing this, if only for the fear of the camel's nose. I am strongly against covering fun pages with a layer of administratium as if they are wikipedia articles or policies, and 3-RR threats in fun pages are particularly insulting. `'Míkka 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• people should be able to opt out of this list. If you really need to know, do the research yourself. Edit warring, reverting, and blocking people over taking their name off this list is the sort of madness that drives good ENCYCLOPEDIA builders away. --Rocksanddirt 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Editors should be able to remove themselves if they choose. The page clearly states that at the top, and has for a long time. This page clearly is a trivial and unneeded part of the encyclopedia. It may be fun, it may be interesting, and I have no beefs with the people who maintain the list; there is nothing inherantly wrong with it. But to insist that people who don't want to participate in the list HAVE TO is just rude and arbitrary. If you want to do this, fine, but there is no reason beyond simple spite to demand that others participate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Neil (above) on this. It's capable of being a highly misleading statistic, but it's a readily publicly available statistic nonetheless. Frankly, other than in a petty competition it's a sufficiently minor issue that it shouldn't matter except as an extremely general measure. Quibble as one might, there is a difference in level of experience between an editor with 100 edits and an editor with 10,000 edits. In orther words, it is a valid statistic within its limitations, and that statistic should not be skewed by removal of usernames from the list.
  ....... Speaking only for myself, I'd also say if one wants a more accurate indicator, maybe a list of Wikipedians by total kB character count might be useful. Beyond that, a list of Wikipedians ranked by analysis of variance as to a rated scale of importance of articles and project pages vs. number of characters contributed might arguably be useful. Then one could want to have separate tallies for characters added vs. characters deleted to sort out whether the editor was on the average adding or subtracting from content, and there would still be questions about the value of the contributions. One could put asterisks on users using automated functions. Then one could, for example, apply a function analyzing the average grade-level of the contributions (there actually are such programs such as the Flesch-Kincaid program), and still have arguments over whether it's better to be plain spoken or of a more advanced level of articulation. And whatever measure one picks, there inevitably are potential arguments over how to interpret it. Or maybe the list should be completely removed, except that the consensus has been to keep the list and let the chips of interpretation fall wherever they may. ... Kenosis 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User Kenosis, the above summary of the issue is quite astute and perhaps the best I've seen here. Unlike others who immediately dogged this page, I saw this page as an 'incremental' improvement, and can be improved, as you noted, by increasing measures of meta-analysis. To me, those insisting on their own removal or list destruction are akin to arguing that first grade should be abolished because no first-grader has ever been president. Starting 'at the beginning' is hardly representative of the goal or the finished product. Certainly, a more pro-active approach would be to include other measures of rankings, as Kenosis mentions above.

Second, to many here it seems the real issue is one of 'power'; the fear that one may be 'exposed' as not powerful enough. But do we measure generals by how many bullets they've fired at enemy troops? Clearly, the issue is not simply one of quantity vs. quality but also ones of public vs. private and single-plane vs. multi-planar. I have already suggested that, if such lists exist, we could reduce their influence in a fair manner by simply making multiple rankings; hence, a sysop should be only listed with sysops, and the information should be private and only available to sysops. Likewise, 'edit count' information for editors should only be available to editors (not unregistered IP addresses) and only listed with other editors. We could also have classes, 'senior editor, editor, and junior editor.' I note that I work with a major, major website that was ranked the #1 website in the world in 2001, and they have created a system that essentially uses these functions. In short, the current 'edit war' is a result of a 'wild west' approach of unplanned growth of data meeting those who seek to maintain control over it. As always, for better or worse the compromise solution is to invoke a system that introduces levels of access/control. Not surprisingly, this has already occurred by reducing the ability of unregistered IP addresses to see information. Likewise, sysops can see more than editors.

Also, in regards to 'power', Wikipedia is currently skewed in favor of those who have made this into a game of position and power, especially for themselves. This includes not just 'editcount' but also accruing 'good article' stars, promotions, claiming date priority (i.e., "I joined Wikipedia before you did!), etc. In an ironic twist, it seems that many who insisted on not just their name removal but also place removal, ostensibly for issues of privacy, on closer inspection were really just concerned with being exposed to criticism that they had done less than their relative position would indicate, 'should' one rely too heavily on 'edit count' numbers. In so doing, they failed to give credit to the vast number of users who understand that the list should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, we do not see Jimbo Wale's name on the list but I'm sure that anyone truly concerned with a ranking of the 'most powerful persons on Wikipedia' would wisely put Mr. Wales as a far-and-away #1. The fact that he is not on this list doesn't mean anything. I do question whether those who insisted on not just their own name removal, but also added threats, name-calling, and edit-warring to the debate, really had the best of intentions of everyone involved here. We must remember that, despite all the criticism, 'edit count' retains SOME validity. Consider that:

A. If poor edits that are deleted/removed by other editors, the system becomes somewhat self-policing. Adding junk won't count for much, except for the delay in catching it. But note also that edit counters also compare what % of edits are deleted, so someone with a poor track record can be identified as such.

B. In addition, there are also measures of diversity in one's 'edit count' summary, such as the number of unique articles edited, edits per article, etc. If editors were really concerned about 'edit count' being overrated, a simple solution would be to add a wikilink which then goes to a summary of that editor's contributions. Thus, one could quickly see that one user might have 100,000 edits but simply ran around 'voting for deletion' while another editor made substantive edits that were mostly retained in the articles edited.

C. MOST of the editors on this list made edits in GOOD FAITH and long before it occurred to most that, one day, their contributions would be measured vs. everyone else's, by way of 'edit count.' Thus, in a way, this list is more valuable than it would at first seem: if someone made 23,000 edits but didn't know they would get credit for it, it says a lot more than if someone made 30,000 edits but was told that 'those who get 30,000 edits get promoted to senior editor' or whatever bribe-inducement MIGHT be used to get one to 'chase after the wind'...by introducing a measure of blindness, the list, in its intitial, unedited Sept 12 incarnation, was the most valuable, with the exception of the inclusion of computer-generated edits (which is an entirely different level of functioning altogether). The list as now written has been corrupted and manipulated by personal biases and attempts at control by hiding information. Further, it seems that with an increasing number of persons noticing this list, editcountitis is becoming an increasing problem. But don't dog the initial list. Instead, we already have added caveats and disclaimers. Unfortunately, the disclaimers themselves seem biased and unfair; further, the 'placeholder' issue has not been settled satisfactorily, while threats such as 'do not remove' or 'do not undo' have been bandied about.

To me, the list as currently presented is a worst-case compromise: it keeps the list but in a corrupted, unreliable state, rather than insist the list either be fact-based or not exist at all.

Ok, I have said enough. I'd like to hear reasoned, rational, and polite responses...not name-calling, edit-warring, and personal diatribe.

Ryoung122 09:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I really have no problem with this page, and no personal feelings about it either way, but I have "opted out" simply because I don't place value on quantity, but on quality. That being said, unlike forums that have the feature as part of their software to show edit numbers, this is not a feature implemented by the developers of Wikipedia, and while everyone's contributions are obviously not private, I still think that if it is decided that users may choose to not be added, their wishes should be respected, and the whole silly edit warring should stop. Ariel♥Gold 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• This really is quite a petty little list, which does not reflect particularly well on those who maintain it or on those who insist that their names be removed. It tries to reduce editors to quantitative totals, and no good ever comes of that. The only factor that holds me back from supporting its deletion is that I'm not interested in telling anyone "no, you can't have this page because I don't agree with it"; if people want it, keep it. Just don't edit war over it or get all hooked up on it. Now go click Special:Random and find something to fix. Adrian M. H. 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Because this page is not related to the maintenance and creation of the encyclopedia, and is thus rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things, I would prefer that editors be able to remove their handles from the list (as I have done). --Iamunknown 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I say again that using placeholders seems to be a perfect compromise. Any particular objections to that solution?Kubigula (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as placeholders are not placed on-behalf of other editors. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the biggest problem I have with this debate is Mikka & others predicating it on the assumption that other people have editcountitis. The assumption that they're okay and other people are not okay stinks and debases their argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming? That editcountitis is okay or there are no editcountitits in wikipedia? I would also recommend to think about what you wrote. If a person has cancer, this does not mean that these people are bad. Cancer is bad. This page stimulates editcountiting capitalizing upon the inherently human desire to compete or to be distinguished. These two drives have lead to modern civilization, but they also have lead to extreme atrocities. This page is useless for any serious purposes and I consider it detrimetal. You may keep this page for your fun, just as some people may smoke their lungs to black, but I demand to be excluded from your hobby. `'Míkka 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue Not Solved

The closing administrator noted:

The result of the debate was No consensus Both sides of the debate has both valid and invalid agruements, so no consensus can be formed. The main issue why this page was in mfd in the first place was over a major edit war, which is silly. If a user wants to op out of this list, they are free to do so and replace themselves with a placeholder, unless consensus is strongly against it, which doesn't seem to be the case here or the talk page. About Ryoung122 agruements with Babe Ruth, etc, they has nothing to do with this debate as those topics and wikipedia policy are different things, so it's mostly moot. Jbeach sup 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It remains to be decided: should placeholders be used, or no?Ryoung122 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV tag. The discussion regarding deletion revealed a wide range of opinions. The article as presently portrayed appears very partial and far from a fair compromise. I note this is a matter of principle: the present list has me at #3193 while the format I favor has me at #3210. Thus, to argue that I am pushing for some self-aggrandizement would be silly. Rather, I am arguing that the principles of Wikipedia be respected on this page, and that includes the WP:NPOV.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

Rather than fighting a drawn-out edit war, I think we can at least agree on a NPOV tag unless/until a fair, pluralistic approach is taken. That includes the re-insertion of edit counts for 'placeholders' and a re-wording of the 'disclaimer' in regards to 'edit count.' I agree that 'edit count' alone does not a good editor make. However, to say it doesn't make any difference is like saying 'population count' doesn't make a difference when determing the relative importance of a city or metro area.Ryoung122 08:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Whether people think the very existence of this page is good or bad, I'm sure it can recognized that the people who think it is bad have reasons for feeling so. I for one think this page is an exceptionally negative presence on the project. As such, I absolutely refuse to be forced to have my pseudonym on the list or a place holder in its place. I do not want to contribute to something I believe to be inherently bad for the project. I am not a city. I am not a metro area. I am a person.
• Further, to respond to a point others have raised, that of my contributions being GFDL and therefore anyone can do anything they like with them. That's not the point. If, say, User:LetsMakeUpAName does a few negative things on the project. Hey, his contributions are GFDL right? Anyone can do what they like with them? What if a user created a page in their userspace as a wall of shame for him, highlighting those bad things? Well we know the 'what if'. The page would be deleted. Not all things that can be done with our contributions here are good and accepted. Likewise, this page is from the view of a number of people a very negative thing. To force people to contribute to something so negative is very, very bad.
• I'll suggest again; those of you who think this sort of thing is somehow useful can have an opt-in page. Forcing people into this page is an inherently bad idea. If you have an opt-in page, the problems with this page largely go away. --Durin 12:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Ryoung. The tag applies to article space. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Place holder"

I'm curious why there is now only one User:Place holder in the list and apparently a few page revisions removed from the history. By my count, there are at least 10 people who were on the list as generated on 9/12 that are not on the list currently, and no place holder present to account for them. Did I miss something in the lengthy debate, or is someone trying to pull a fast one? JPG-GR 23:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The only fast one that is being pulled is the lovers of this list attempting to force participation on people who do not want to be on the list. This has been debated ad nauseum. Respect the rights of other editors to not participate in this silly gamesmanship. --Durin 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask for this debate to be drawn out, I simply asked if I missed something in the debate about the use of User:Place holder being removed (which I tend to think is the case, as the userpage is now a readlink). JPG-GR 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm just losing my mind. I've re-placed User:Place holder in spots where users have removed themselves. If I'm wrong in doing this, I've misunderstood something along the way, and welcome someone's correction. Thanks! JPG-GR 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nevermind nothing. Stop forcing people to participate. --Durin 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How is inclusion of a place holder "forcing people to participate"? Alansohn 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Because the people who are represented by the placeholders are being forced to contribute to the rankings, whether their name is there or not. See my earlier comments in the section above. I do not want to contribute to this ridiculous display of gamesmanship. Whether my username is in it or not, you are forcing me to contribute to it by putting a place holder in my stead. Make this an opt-in list and most of the problems go away. --Durin 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have always used this list as a reference point for the number of regular contributors to Wikipedia, a recurring topic at WT:RFA which you've shown interest in as well. We used to be able to use the normal statistics pages to see how many people were contributing over 5 edits a month, over 100 edits a month, etc., but until such time as the database dumps start working properly again, we're often forced to talk about "1350 administrators out of 5 million users" at RFA as though those are meaningful terms. This list tells me at a glance the order of magnitude of accounts that could be promoted through RFA. It does a far better job of this than its opt-in counterpart, the list of non-admins with high edit counts. If you know a better way to approximate the number of editors active on Wikipedia at any given time, please let me know (I genuinely would like to hear about it). I have a hard time believing that this list actually contributes to editcountitis, but if it does, at least people are doing the repetitive, menial tasks that need to be wikignomed by somebody. Dekimasuよ! 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for making part of my point. Above you note a correlation between edit counts and ability to be granted adminship. There is no correlation between these two in terms of an editor's real abilities. You, along with a variety of people, are equating edit counts with some acceptability level of an editor's qualifications. That's an completely erroneous stance, and one that has led to multiple, multiple problems. I've stated before that the suitability for a person to be an administrator is within that person the moment they begin editing Wikipedia. The rest is training. Edit counts reflect nothing on either of those, even on training. --Durin 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'll regret asking if we're just going to talk past each other. I don't correlate an editor's edit count and an editor's abilities, but no one who is not an active editor, by any standard you choose (having edited within the last week, having edited 20 times in the last month, whatever), is going to be successful at RfA. And that wasn't the point of my post. For one thing, RfA's not as broken as many people think if a large percentage of our active editors are becoming admins. Do you know any better way to estimate the number of active editors on Wikipedia, or not? Dekimasuよ! 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Nobody is forced to contribute to Wikipedia. If a person chooses to contribute, however, they accept that every edit they make will be subject to scrutiny for all time. Any halfway decent programmer can pull all your contributions and find out about every edit you ever made. They know your interests. They know if you can spell 'independent' correctly. They know when you are sleeping; they know when you're awake. They know if you've been bad or good. (So be good, for goodness' sake!) I can't avoid having someone find out how many edits I've made to Wikipedia, and I can't be bothered caring if someone puts it into a sorted list.

Further, I can see there being some useful and valid reasons for someone performing certain types of psychosocial and/or statistical studies to want to have access to these data, and I see no need to force anyone interested in this information to reinvent the wheel. By all means, let people who want to be anonymous opt out of the list; the value of the information isn't greatly reduced for most purposes if some people opt to be nameless. I'd hate to see the data distorted by the outright removal of list entries, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• See my comments in the previous section. That someone's contributions are all GFDL and therefore anyone can do anything with them is not entirely accurate. I have no interest in the accuracy of this data. I do have a very strong interest in preventing this list from corrupting the project, which is precisely what it is doing. --Durin 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why bother having a username? Above and beyond any information that can be deduced about you from your userpage and talk page, every single edit you make, what articles you edit, what you change, when you make changes and more is all available to any individual with access to the Internet. A wonderful psychological profile could be assembled about you (or any other editor) based on your edit history. Yet there is no way to block access to this information, even through an opt-out function. While your editcount does provide some personal information, it's at best a minute fraction of what is available about you on Wikipedia. If only there were a way to edit anonymously, perhaps by using an IP address, but even that could be traced back to you. Even if disclosing your editcount with your username were a privacy issue, a placeholder would solve that. But even if this list were to be deleted in its entirety, the issue of the existence of a permanent log of every single edit you've made has not been addressed. Alansohn 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• If people were able to hide their own edit histories wikipedia would soon cease to function, it would be a troll field day. But there is no way anybody can deduce who the place holders are, so anonymity is kept, but if I want to find out how many edits whoever has done kate's tool gives me that info, SqueakBox 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see my above arguments. It's not just about privacy. It's about being forced to actively contribute to something that is inherently negative to the project (from the view of many people who do not want to be on the list). --Durin 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Forced to actively contribute?" Who's pointing a gun at your head and what have they forced you to "actively" do? The list was generated without your assistance, and you are free to ignore the list, passively or actively. Yet you argue that even a placeholder would be a problem. Alansohn 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, because you're forcing me to be on the list, either through my username or through edit count and placement in the rankings. I do not want to contribute to this list, yet you force me to. If you're not forcing me, then I don't see there'd be any problem with putting place holders every other username. Afterall, the rankings don't matter, right? --Durin 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• No one is forcing you to do anything, you are choosing to edit on wikipedia, therefore you have chosen to be associated with your edits. And all this list is, is a total of those edits. You keep saying this is negative to the project but if anything its positive cause its causing some people to do meaneal tasks which need to be done by someone anyways. --Djsasso 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The use of "place holders" is illogical. If an editor has contributed to Wikipedia, their edits are part of our encyclopedia's history. "Cloaking" the edit counts of particular users is an extreme deviation from our policy of transparency, and the use of a semi-anonymous username (which for most editors does not include any part of their actual name) should provide enough anonymity. Promptly restore the actual user names and remove the "place holders." Badagnani 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Again, see my comments in the section above. Simply because contributions are done under GFDL does not mean we can do whatever we like with them on this project. We aren't allowed to create halls of shame, we aren't allowed to damage the project, we aren't allowed to ridicule people for their mistakes. Similarly, those of us who want off this list do not want to contribute to this ridiculously negative page. It survived MfD. But, that MfD does not give you or anyone else authority to force me or anyone else who does not want to be on this list to be on it. --Durin 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you are anonymous your concerns shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us, SqueakBox 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But I'm not anonymous. Why does changing your ranking spoil it for you unless it's a little game? As I keep saying, making this an opt-in list and the problems largely go away. If you want to play silly games, play it with people who actually want to play. --Durin 21:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • A placeholder does make you anonymous. Quite honestly all this complaining when your name wouldn't even be attached to the edits sounds more like playing a silly game than this list does. --Djsasso 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Durin: [5] - no one is forcing you to contribute in anything - this list or Wikipedia. However, by participating in Wikipedia, your edits are counted in a way that is very much public knowledge (via database dumps, or use of the Kate's tool, or whatever). By removing yourself from the list, you are making the list inaccurate, which is something I'd hope no good-faith editor truly wants. This is why User:Place holder was created. Granted, perhaps revisions with editors who want to be removed should be hidden/deleted, to give some anonymity. But, you've made those xxxxx edits, and those edits aren't going anywhere. JPG-GR 02:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm tired of arguing this ad nauseum. You've presented nothing in this latest response that I have not responded to before. I will not accept forced inclusion of my username or a place holder in lieu of my username. I absolutely refuse to participate in this list. I am far from alone in this opinion. Good day. --Durin 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see that you've proven that your refusal to be a part of the list means you have any right to not be on the list, username or place holder. JPG-GR 06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice

I recommend that the notice be rewritten to be less POV. The wording of it should be informative without being insulting.--Kumioko 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)--Kumioko 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That green notice needs to go, it's so pedantic, insulting, and POV that I'm amazed it's still there. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ominous, Orwellian come to mind. Dr.K. 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Generating this list

This sounds like a great first program to fool around with Perl and the Wikipedia history database, but I have to ask... how much does it cost Wikimedia for someone to download 5.6 GB from the server? Do they mind if we do it for fun? 70.15.116.59 05:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I used to d/l the full database for other reasons, now I generally just get the current pages. To create the above list you only need the "stub history" which is quite a bit smaller. 79.72.234.59 —Preceding comment was added at 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominating the worst sentence on wikipedia

From Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits: As a result of these and other editorial approaches common in the community, editing styles are not directly comparable in terms of "value" and "numbers" as a list might suggest, and this list should be taken to mean little in terms of quality or significance.

What on earth was the author struggling to say? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Probably just the same what this very list says: something incoherent, but looking very important. `'Míkka 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true that parts of the introductory paragraph are poorly or confusedly articulated; I think a reformation of the lead text might not go amiss. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• After two reads, I take it to mean, "This list does not account for the quality or significance of the edits, just the quantity of them. Peoples edits vary. One editor may complete a well written essay with just one edit. Another may make dozens of edits to write a single awkward sentence. " -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Next update

Any idea if the next dump is ready anyone? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just find someone with toolserver access and ask them nicely. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...Would that include you?? If so, please do. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't, but there's a list of people who do at m:Toolserver, and a related IRC channel at #wikimedia-toolserver. I always pulled it from the generated database dumps, but it's preferable to use the toolserver method, IMO. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I went into the IRC channel and asked nicely. Hopefully that means we'll get an update in the next few days. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, please never again dump gigabytes of data into talk pages. Please use a separate pages. I barely managed to save my editing work after an attempt to load this page with your upload.

This version of talk contains Betakommand's updated list, btw, who ignored the request to leave some names out. `'Míkka 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I requested that he run the update, and he probably didn't know about the anon list. I'll see about grabbing the data from the talk history, formatting it, etc, and posting it on the latest list. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I figured out the regex to convert that. For those curious:

Find: ^\|[ ]*(?<number>[0-9]*) \| (?<name>.*[A-Za-z0-9æü²先生!@\(\)\-,\.\:\?])[ ]*\|[ ]*(?<count>[0-9]*) \| $

Replace: # [[User:${name}|${name}]] ${count}

For some reason it's missing User:A. Now to remove users, and a few bots... is there a comprehensive list of bots somewhere? I'm pretty sure there's a related category... I'd like to make a regex of bots to remove so that we don't have to hunt them down every time. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, someone did a shoddy trim. There are bots all over the list. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove any of the bots. I figured that other people could bother with that part, as I didn't have a regex made to find and eliminate them. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel like doing it. I will do it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you just hunt them down manually, or did you do something fancy like a regex? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Manual. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate users?

I want my accounts to be combined on this list. Anonymous Dissident had reverted it, saying they were two separate users. Both of them are me. Back in 2005 I couldn't combine the edits, so I think in the interests of accuracy, they should be combined since they were all done by me. It is list of Wikipedians by number of edits, not list of accounts by number of edits. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fair. When I generate/format the list, I'll combine the accounts, and I hope other users will accept that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected page

Old revert war seems to be flaring up again. Page protection is always better than blocking long time editors, as happened last time. --Duk 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly merits its inclusion in WP:LAME. What a silly thing to edit-war over! --John 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This war is getting tiresome, and ridiculous. Allow those who don't want to be on the list leave, and don't revert. It's as easy as that. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the anonymous list was for replacing those names with User:Place holder. The anon list has since been separated into "placeholder" and "remove" sections. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

...That being said, if you prefer to be represented by a placeholder instead of removed entirely from the list, please edit the anonymous list accordingly. Thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your impression is incorrect. There is no consensus to force people against there will to contribute to this list either by the presence of their username or a place holder in their stead. I find it absolutely absurd that even though people removed themselves people continued to edit war to force their names back onto this list, yet again. This has been going on for months. Enough is enough. If you want to play your games with editcountitis, that's your business. You have no business forcing me or anyone else to contribute to your game. Two weeks ago, someone attempted to turn this list into an alpha sorted list [6]. I thought this was a move in the right direction at least because it reduced the implied importance of ranking people by their edit counts]. Unfortunately, it was reverted within three minutes. Those of you insistent on including place holders have never made a good case for why these rankings are important. They are utterly, completely, meaningless. Anyone can easily game this system to absurd lengths. Alternatively, a conscientious editor can make a very substantial change to an article in one edit. The very first paragraph of Help:Show preview encourages us to use preview rather than multiple saves, yet this list encourages the opposite so people artificially inflate their edit counts. The rankings are meaningless. Lastly, read Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous. Do you see ANYONE who has elected to have their names replaced by a place holder? --Durin 00:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has listed their name as a placeholder because the section did not exist until slightly before I posted that comment. The few people who signed up for the anonymous list, out of deference to you, Mikkalai, etc, were placed on the "remove" list instead of forcing you all to go back and move your names from "place holder" to "remove". So, your argument is invalid. It's empty because I'm trying to respect your wishes. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes the section existed, but not a single person placed themselves into it. I restored an empty section several times, but some perfectionists kept deleting it over and over. `'Míkka 03:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• If you're interested in respecting our wishes, then stop trying to ram-rod this down our throats, as you have repeatedly done [7][8][9][10]. --Durin 02:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Place holder is anonymous and the people whose namesd have been removed should not even be able to recognise themselves. What I see is the pro-placeholders bending over backwards to compromise and the anti-placeholders refusing to make any kind of compromise as if their goal is nott heir own privacy but simply to destroy this page. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• You don't have to "bend backwards". This game is not related to creating wikipedia. You can have the whole list with full names in your namespace. Numerous mirrors of the "List of Wikipedians by number of edits" are visible all over google and promotes false ranking among wikipedians, and I don't want to take any part in this. `'Míkka 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Durin, frankly your position is incoherent. Nobody is forcing you "to contribute to this list"; someone else has made this list, based on publicly available information, and you're free to read it or not. --Delirium 03:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Delirium "someone else" does not own wikipedia working namespace pages. Let "someone else" store any list they want in their namespace and play whatever games they like there. This discussion drags for months already chewing the same arguments over and over again. This page serves no encyclopedic purpose. This ranking is meaningless. It is putting oranges and orangs into one barrel and calling it statistics. `'Míkka 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why there couldn't be such a list. "Meaning(less)" is matter for subjective interpretation, no? Someone might consider WP:LAME as meaningless as well. The list simply provides more background information about Wikipedia itself, and I am sure many people out there might want to take a look at it, if they choose to do so. Baristarim 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lather, rinse, repeat. And hey, I'm incoherent now too! Thanks Delirium! --Durin 02:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the list is NOT meaningless. If it were, why would anyone object to being on it? The REAL reason they don't want to be listed is because most of them are long-time/powerful editors and they don't want to be on the same level as 'up-and-comers'. It's sort of like a Forbes wealth list dispute between 'old money' and 'new money'. True, a number alone does not convey the historical significance of a Mellon or Vanderbilt. That said, it becomes parochial and elitist to insist that special position should exist forever...it's sort of like a 'House of Lords' inherited membership versus a House of Commons' membership based on VOTE COUNT.

True, 'edit count' is not everything, but to say it is meaningless is simply sticking fingers in one's ears and closing one's eyes. Rather, it can be one method of 'triangulation'...using multiple criteria for assessment. Note that a detailed 'edit count' report includes stats on not just 'total number of edits' but also analyzes the diversity of edits, edits per article, kept vs. deleted edits, etc. Also, the little, trite diatribe on 'editcountitis' is also foolish. If I wanted to fly to China, would I say 'the journey may be an hour or ten'? No. True, not all edits are the same, and count alone is not a valid measure of a person's contributory effort. However, one must think that IF Person A contributed 15,000 times and person B contributed 5 edits, there's a huge difference in the impacts between the two. Or might I say 'both are the same' and pretend to be Confucian? LOL.Ryoung122 05:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm really saying is that the vehement objections do more to validate the list than anything else. It's like objecting to a 'list of cities by population count'. No one is arguing that Mesa, Arizona is more important than Miami, Florida. Yet population-wise...ONE metric...Mesa is ahead. Likewise, a list of wealthiest persons doesn't mean that someone that has more money than George W Bush is more important OR more powerful. Nonetheless, it still means something...if you went to buy a yacht and had the money, well then the dealer would sell it. That's point #2.Ryoung122 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

False analogy and red herring. Head count and $$$ are uniform measures of size. Edit count is not. In terms of your example it is like measuring the wealth of the person in terms of money bills: you are, like, summing (number of $1 bills) + ( number of $100 bills). About importance: the problem is we don't have other measures of importance to counterbalence the bias generated by this stupid list. The more stupid one would be List of wikipedians by the number of barnstars. I am surprized no one thought of it yet. `'Míkka 17:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

List of wikipedians by the number of barnstars would not be in the article namespace, as any fule kno. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, pick me on a typo. Wikipedia:List of wikipedians by the number of barnstars. Feel better? `'Míkka 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the important thing is not to take this list too seriously. Maybe it is stupid but its just a bit of fun and with the placeholder in place a harmless bit of fun at that. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• If the place holders are harmless, then I suppose you wouldn't mind having a few hundred of them randomly sprinkled through the list? If you want to have your bit of fun, fine. But, you don't get to force other people to participate in your games. --Durin 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you guys edit war over this page, but not WP:ADMINSTATS? Or User:Bryan/List_of_users_by_pages_created? Or any of the other tens of pages listing users by some sort of criteria? Neil ☎ 10:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Neil ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's just another form of the "This <insert bad thing> exists elsewhere at <bad place> so it's ok here" argument. Doesn't work in mainspace any better than it works here. --Durin 13:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• That reply would apply if I didn't consider all these pages to be awesome. I am interested why this page receives your negative attention and insistence at being removed entirely, but those do not. Neil ☎ 16:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Explained already and buried in the flood of rant: User:Bryan/List_of_users_by_pages_created is user:Bryan's personal namespace. By putting the list into wikipedia namespace you give it an aura of "officiency". As for admin stats, this list does not have the problem of the list of edits: unlike a single edit, a single block is of the same "weight" as any other's, and an admin who deleted 1000 pages worked about 10x harder than the one who deleted 100 pages. Finally, user:Misza13, who deleted ~140,000 ( awesome!) pages definitely 100x beats me, who created only ~1,400 pages :-) `'Míkka 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• • A reasonable answer - thanks, Mikka. I like the word "officiency". As a hypothetical question, would listing users by the volume of additions to Wikipedia (ie, number of bytes added) be acceptable or un in your eyes? Neil ☎ 09:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Question still stands for Mikka, if he wishes to respond. Neil ☎ 10:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• That answer should be obvious. The quantity of bytes of a contribution does not give any measure of the quality of the edits. Thus, ranking editors by bytes contributed is just as arbitrary and demeaning as by edit counts. --Durin 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question still stands for Mikka, if he wishes to respond. Neil ☎ 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred not to enter this discussion but I feel compelled to do so because I think everyone is missing the point. The reason for missing the point is that we are trying to measure the parameters of an object without defining either the object or its objective function. Let's suppose our object is the the measurement of the contribution of an editor to Wikipedia. How do we define the parameters (objective function) for such measurement? Before we even go that far we must define what we mean by contribution. Is it an absolute measurement in terms of value? For example, an engineer contributes something esoteric but powerful. Then a medical doctor comes along and does something similar for a medical article. How do we compare these contributions in absolute terms? Is Medicine better than Engineering? At the other end of the spectrum, an anonymous guy comes in and contributes a minor comma or a period in a large article. Where does he stand in terms of the engineer and the doctor? What if it took him three times as long to find that little comma than it took the scientists to write their brilliant piece? Is time taken to prepare the contribution part of our objective function? Others just discover a few minor details and correct them by making serial edits so that they can increase their edit count. Others are absent-minded and they keep making serial minor edits as they discover them. How do we distinguish between the absent minded serial minor edit contributors and the ones that do it on purpose? Should we? Someone by inserting a minor comma after proofreading a large article for a long time makes the section much more clear. Is his comma better than a comma casually contributed by an editor in a smaller article that took much shorter time to identify the need for? As you see this task is almost impossible even to define let alone implement by the crude yardstick we now have. Dr.K. 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• de-indent It would not be acceptable to me. You'd still be ranking editors. ALL good faith editors are equal. ALL of them. --Durin 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What about Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? That ranks good faith editors using the Featured Articles they have produced as a metric, and it's in Wikipedia namespace. Again, I am not using the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument - I'm interested in what is and is not acceptable, to try and fully understand your concerns - am I right in saying it boils down to "there should be no lists which rank good faith editors by any criteria"? Neil ☎ 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Picture yourself a new user. You come across <insert ranking page>. What do you think? For a subset of the population of new editors, there will be those that think "Damn. I'm never going to be that good without investing a hell of a lot of work into this. I'm not up for that". ANY time you create lists like this you are creating hierarchies of editors, where new editors are not considered in the same light as long time editors. I realize this is very difficult to accept, because the nature of social development in human societies (online or otherwise) gives credence to people with long time standing in the community and less credence to newcomers. But, Wikipedia is different. "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That Isn't just nice words. It's a credo, something we live by. As soon as you create hierarchies, you make edits by new editors less acceptable than long time editors...this works against that credo.
    • And yes, I do have concerns with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. While it is true that articles that get to featured status frequently do so mainly by the work of a single editor, this still ignores the huge amount of effort put into the broad spectrum of featured articles performed by people who don't get credit for it on this list. Taking User:Lord Emsworth from the top of that list and the first three featured articles with blue stars...I removed obvious vandals, vandal reverts, IPs (probably shouldn't have) and bot edits. In sum, I find 727 unique registered editors, working over a combined time span of 17 years of article development. Lord Emsworth's edits comprised just 14% of total edits. So, we should attribute some sort of credit to Lord Emsworth in ignorance of the contributions of 726 other editors who worked to improve these articles, even if incrementally? Not to mention the people who commented on the various FA noms with suggestions on how to improve the article. I guess their contributions do not count either? This madness needs to stop. ALL good faith editors are equal. Period. --Durin 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Placeholders violate spirit and principle of Wikipedia

No, that is NOT a 'flame' statement. Stop and consider a few points about Wikipedia:

--It was founded so that 'anyone can edit.' --It was founded to be 'free' and 'open.'

By signing up as an editor, you read disclaimers that the info. will be free/publicly available/blah blah blah. So, to insist on anonymity when you CHOSE to be a part of a public system really is a violation.

But, I couldn't care less if User X doesn't want to be publicly identified (even though their information is public!). What I do care about is, if this list is to exist it all, it should be 'knowledgeable'. Plato said that knowledge is a subset of what is true and believed. If we use placeholders, the list is knowledgeable. If we don't use placeholders, it is NOT knowledgeable: I both KNOW and BELIEVE that it is not accurate.

The point is: the 'placeholder' or 'anonymous' is NOT REALLY ABOUT YOU. GOT IT? It's about everyone else on the list. And yes, without placeholders I'm ranked at #2,916 and with placeholders I'm ranked at #2,936. But the point is NOT about me 'climbing the list' faster. It's about TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, and BELIEF. If I know that I'm not really at 2916 then it becomes meaningless.

Suppose I generated a list of the top 100 ML baseball players by 'total plate appearances'. That list wouldn't say much about productivitiy and value, except one: anyone on the list must have been going at it for a long time, and surely if they were terrible they would have been gotten rid of long before they got there. So, even when the list gives no other data, it still gives information.

Now, suppose I had a computer randomly generate 15 people of the top 100, and then passed out the list to children with the top 85 numbered. Now the list is inaccurate, deceptive, and mis-educating. Got it?

Then, suppose I told the children that '15' of the people were deleted, so the rankings may not be accurate. Well, at least they know to only take the list 'with a grain of salt'. But...they now know that they really can't make a determination of who is really first, or how distorted the list is.

Finally...I THOUGHT such a list as 'list of Wikipedia editors by edit count' was, in some sense, a bit of 'fun.' Give credit to persons like Rich Farmbrough who have done almost as much as computer-generated bots, and sometimes more. A sort of human 'John Henry.' The nay-saying deletionists really need to get a sense of humor, and stop violating the policy of WP:OWN. Since when did FREE, PUBLIC information that was added to Wikipedia VOLUNTARILY suddenly become PRIVATE and ANONYMOUS...the very antithesis of Wikipedia.Ryoung122 05:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• And now I violate the principle and spirit of Wikipedia. I'll add that to the "incoherent" compliment I received above. Any other insults you'd like to toss about? --Durin 15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Big guns. Whooo. What else? First Amendment? Tall words aside, all your analogies are moot because of fasle analogy. Your "list of baseball players by plate appearance" will be deleted outright exaclty because it is the same nonsense as "list of wikipedian by nombers of edit". Pray tell me how Rich becomes less respected when I remove my name from this list? `'Míkka 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There you go again, tryiong to impose your assumptions on the rst of us. it is not about "respect", it is about an ordered list of wikipedians by number of edits. When you stop trying to frame it as something it is not, you will, I hope, understand the objection to moving everyone up a place when you refuse a bare minimum of common courtesy cooperation by way of leaving a placeholder in stead of your name. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It isn't common courtesy to force someone to play a game they don't want to be in. --Durin 14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • He or she is not forced to play. Simply remove Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits from your watch list & stop obsessing. The quality of your argument is measured by the number of these straw man arguments you fabricate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I find it interesting that the people who insist on forcing us to play this game against our will have resorted to a number of personal attacks in some strange attempt to convince the world of the veracity of their position. I've previously been called "incoherent" and that I "violate the principle and spirit of Wikipedia". Now I get to add "obsessing" to that ever growing list of insults that any day now will convince the world how right you are. --Durin 14:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Go on then, I'll bite. In what way are you being asked to "play the game" if your name has been placed by a placeholder. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Thus my "lather, rinse, repeat" comment in a prior section. We've been through this over and over again. Even if you replace my username with a place holder, you're still using my edit count to rank others as below/above me. The ranks are meaningless and having the ranks inherently creates an aura that they somehow matter. The first time editor here making their very first edits is every bit as important and welcome on the project as User:Rich Farmbrough. Take for example User:HssanKachal who just signed up today. His first edits created this. Any notion that someone is better, more welcome or more respected because of the quantity of their edits is flatly false. We can argue this until the cows come home. In fact, the cows are this point are so old their udders are dragging on the ground behind them further than Princess Diana's train at her wedding. The ranking lovers are not convinced, and the ranking haters are not convinced. Stalemate. Nevertheless, the right of the editor to NOT participate in something is not subordinate to the right(cough) of someone to force them to participate. --Durin 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
              • The second you click that "save page" button, they are not "your" edits. Neil ☎ 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
                • And again lather, rinse, repeat. Already answered previously. --Durin 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • I don't get it - are you washing your hair? I missed that previous answer - could you point me in the direction of the response? Neil ☎ 09:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Any notion that someone is better, more welcome or more respected because of the quantity of their edits is flatly false.. There you go again with your inventions. It's an edit count, not a comparative merit roll. One which you have no interest in, except to prevent others from doing what they've been doing for the past few years, which is see their position in it. I'm at a loss to know why you are spending so much energy trying to stop other people from doing something that interests them. As for Even if you replace my username with a place holder, you're still using my edit count to rank others as below/above me ... no, once a placeholder has been substituted for your name, the list is using your edit count to rank others as below/above the placeholder. Edit counts are not your property. Bottom line is that you don't like the football so have decided to seek to stop anyone playing. Add obnoxious to your list of opprobrious words. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, there I go again. The problem with your stance is you say it's meaningless, yet you guys are addicted to the rankings so much that accepting the lack of place holders is incomprehensible. YOU guys are the ones that made it a comparative merit roll, not I. And thank you for the additional insult. Was that intended to convince me you are right? Keep it up, and you know where that leads. Please observe WP:NPA. --Durin 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect count:

Hmmm, I think that this entire list may be up the whack. It says that I have "Spawn Man 11108" edits. I was surprised, yet flattered, considering I only have around 10800 and am at least half a month off making the amount this list suggests. Any explaination for the mistake (Apart from me doing extra edits in my sleep...)? Cheers, Spawn Man 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This list counts deleted edits as well as non-deleted edits. Your current edit count (with deleted edits) is available in your preferences. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see... Thanks for the help. Yay! I've gone up a few hundred places! :) Spawn Man 05:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The earlier version counted only non-deleted edits. And while I feel that many of the 'deleted' edits I made were good, shouldn't a list of non-deleted edits be a better representation of an editor's volume contribution? I mean, if I were counting the population of a city, I'd subtract those who died or moved away, right, to get the present number?Ryoung122 05:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If an editor tags pages for speedy deletion, their edits are represented in this list. There are arguments both for and against including deleted edits, and it's really up to whoever generates the list. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonpartisan suggestion

First, pull the bots. Then, leave all the usernames off the list, and put up the numbers. Any users who really care what "place" they're in can compare the numbers in their preferences to the numbers on the list. Any information necessary or of interest for statistical purposes would be retained. It wouldn't be clear who was represented by each number, so there would be no need opt out of the list or argue over placeholders. Dekimasuよ! 01:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestion. Sounds like a lottery and is good for those who care to play it. Dr.K. 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do have a concern. The number on the page is commonly different from the number in your preferences. For instance, my number on the list is about 300 edits lower than my number on my preferences. This would making finding your number quite difficult. Just thought I should point that out. Captain panda 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This list is obsolete as soon as it gets published. The position on the list is only a snapshot. It changes by the hour as others in your neighbourhood advance or fall behind compared to your current contributions. A few hundred edits here and there won't really make much of a difference. Anyway this being a lottery it also has the same meaning as one. That is none. Dr.K. 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well since Dekimasu intends for this to still be usable for people who want to know their place, I think it is a good idea to point out problems in this that would prevent it from being used for that purpose. Captain panda 02:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. But even users should know its limitations, including the impossibility of knowing your exact number at any given time. This is true of the current list as well. Dr.K. 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't quite as true of the current list as it would be in the list suggested. In this list, having the username next to each number makes it clear whose it is. By just having the numbers and not the names, it becomes much harder to find your number as you do not know what your number is on that page. Captain panda 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the amount of uncertainty increases. Data entropy goes up. But in an already uncertain system and given the rather small data entropy increase this shouldn't really matter to most. Dr.K. 03:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. Still, I am uncertain about the idea. Captain panda 03:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me. Just look at the volume of the discussions above us. Coming out of an ill defined mess such as this is really daunting. Dr.K. 04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User IDs could be used instead of usernames. --MZMcBride 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to do a double take on that one. I had forgotten about the ID. How fitting it sounds looks like an alter ego. Great idea. It's also an isentropic transition from the present system and more confidential to boot, since your ID is not known. Dr.K. 04:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no. Could someone reverse engineer your ID number by using Kate's edit counter and then look at the list? Dr.K. 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as neither Kate's nor Interiot's tools count deleted edits, and most established editors would have at least a few deleted edits, so there would be (and is) a disparity between the counts. --Closedmouth 05:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But one could guess within a limited range. Dr.K. 05:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but the counts are so close together your margin of error would pretty much negate any kind of reasonable outcome, surely? Example:

1. 12346ID 5186
2. 12347ID 5185
3. 12348ID 5184
4. 12349ID 5183
5. 12350ID 5182
6. 12351ID 5180

So who is who, and how do you determine it? And more importantly, why? --Closedmouth 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Object to above proposals; keep page "as is." No need to change. Badagnani 09:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Badagani, voting is evil. The User ID idea is great at first glance, but then you realise it has a few serious faults. Such as the fact this will give away the User IDs of the top 20 or so contributors (because it is obvious who they are). It will be difficult to determine which IDs are bots. If someone really wants to remove their score, they will have to give away their User ID in order to do so. Durin still won't like it. It would also have no meaning. Once we get to the stage where all we have is two tangentially connected sets of number, MFD is only a step away (hey, maybe Durin would like it!). Neil ☎ 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with giving away the user ID numbers? They're already publicly available in the dumps. --Gwern (contribs) 14:55 12 November 2007 (GMT)

This is certainly a unique solution to the issue. I'd love to see a page generated in this manner to see it in practice. JPG-GR 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no need for this very, very bad idea. We don't "hide" our contributions to Wikipedia or any of the other Wikiprojects, and if we want to do so, we'll use anon IPs rather than usernames. Usernames are semi-anonymous in any case, as most do not include any part of the real name of the user. Badagnani 09:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regular Updating

I think that this list should be updated every two weeks, or every month. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be kept in mind that we do have to wait for the server to catch up. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How long does it take for the server to catch up? <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 13:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the toolserver, that was caught up a while ago. If you're not, excuse me --Closedmouth (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just poke me tomorrow and Ill run an update. β^_command 14:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do have the datas, let's see if I can format it properly :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

List updated

I've updated the list today. It's updated at 2007-12-22 02:09 UTC. I've removed all the flagged bots, all the accounts with bot in it that sounded like bots and all the accounts that have requested to not be part of the list in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous directly in the first updated revision. In my humble opinions, 21 users aren't much in four thousands. If you want yourself removed, remove your line but please add yourself to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous so on the next runs I can directly remove you in the first revision. If you prefer to be listed with a place holder, list in the other section. Happy editing everybody, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removing bots, could you paste them into another section? I'd like to see this info and I imagine other bot ops would be interested too. --kingboyk (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not spotting it earlier, in future if I appears to have vanished, ping me on the talk please. I can create a bot specific list on the next run, only if people starts the same drama about their bot not to be included, I'll drop it altogether. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Only one thing, while I can easily create a list of flagged bots, adding unflagged bots will have to be done manually (I'll get the bot that I have to manually remove from the user list, so only those with high contribs). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

“ I can create a bot specific list on the next run, only if people starts the same drama about their bot not to be included, I'll drop it altogether. ”

That list won't be updated anymore, it could be deleted if you wish, but since as I said, we've received the first request for a bot to be dropped for the list, I won't run it anymore. Note that also we had a whole bunch of bot deflagged per inactivity so if anybody wishes to run it again it has to get them from the Status or WJScribe list of debottings. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave out inactive accounts?

Could there also be a list that leaves out accounts that haven't been editing in, say, three or six months? Would imo better reflect the actual, current core group of contributors. Dorfklatsch 12:05, January 11, 2008

As long as it's a different list. It would be harder to create, though. bob rulz (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant a seperate list. Some semi-automated way would be necessary though; something to automatically identify inactive accounts. Dorfklatsch 15:35, January 11, 2008

What's the point of another list? In the past, all list but this one (as it's the only that can be easily completely automatized) have been fell unupdated. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

List updated

The list has been updated with data as of 20 January 2008, 22:49 UTC. As always, flagged bots, users who requested not to be listed and unflagged bots that I've found by a quick look have been removed before the inclusion. Feel free to remove yourself if you don't want to be listed, but please update Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous too. If you spot a bot that I've missed, please remove it and list it here (new page).

I'm creating Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits per kingboyk's request. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Further updates of the list are delayed until Toolserver's s1 catch up its lag (around 5 days and 2 hours at the moment) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletes

I would like to request two more lists:

• List of admins by number of deletions
• List of Wikipedians by number of deleted edits.

(Purely out of interest you understand - if I come in at 200th on both I won't mind!). -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins stats are available at User:ST47/Stats.--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Counting one-line edits

16-Feb-2008: Is there a way to count users by one-line edits? When first editing Wikipedia, I formerly made a lot of one-line edits to articles, before I realized I could save the page text into an editor to merge other user changes, adding sources to expand "one-line" edits. As of February 2008, Wikipedia still punishes extensive, slow edits (online) by erasing the edit-buffer on "edit conflict" or page timeout (after transmission errors). Users who make frequent one-line, one-word edits rarely risk the loss of extensive changes, so that encourages stuffing and clogging Wikipedia with numerous one-line revisions. Can we get a count of the one-line edits to track how future Wikipedia policies can deter all those expensive tiny edits that generate massive revision data? The average edits per page in Wikipedia have skyrocketed from 30 edits/page in mid-2006 to 90.36 edits per page on 15Feb08, and those extra 60 edits were NOT adding source footnotes and illustrations to each of 2 million articles. Of the total 1,252,636,799 edits [live count], how many are one-line edits? The one-line edits need to be discouraged (somewhat), but also tallied for periodic counts, to measure how Wikipedia policies are detering such wasteful changes. Of course, exclude admins from counts related to one-line tagging. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Generation

Its drawing on 2 months since previous update. Can someone do it please? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said. But it's a sad commentary when it's such a drawn out affair. Maybe only a few care. Dr.K. (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I care, but I have no idea how to do it and I am extremely bad at following technical directions such as those on the top of this page on how to do it. Captain panda 13:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In future, just drop a ping on my talk page. I've been pinged by a couple of users on IRC and an updated of this and the Bots by edits list will be done in the next few days. Sorry for the delay. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits, and ...

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits and Wikipedia:Most frequently edited pages updated. --AutumnSnow (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems I'am not on this list :~( ..--Cometstyles 23:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Curps listed as a bot?

Why is Curps listed as a bot? Hesperian 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is one afaik. Well, it was one, it's inactive. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it never had a bot flag, and everyone always treated him/her as a person. Hesperian 03:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot? The userlist seems to disagree. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and look at all the attack accounts underneath. Do you think a bot could piss someone off that much? No, I'm quite certain Curps is flesh and blood. Hesperian 04:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a few conversations with him a while back. Indeed, a bot cannot get upset telling others that they are completely incorrigible and any further dialog with [them] is a waste of time. He was first blocked with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (for bot-like reversion). I believe he took a decision to semi-retire after that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've investigated the issue further, it appears that Curps wasn't only an adminbot but also a human :) Well, if I manage to run the list again, I'll be delighted to include it back. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Curps is in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/unflagged bots. But now, I think that Curps is not a bot. I fixed the list. --AutumnSnow (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

List is wrong

On the Jan run I had 46729 edits. On the March run it says I have 46791 edits. Considering I edit about 1500 times a month...HUH? Something is amiss here. I really have just under 50K edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While I have no answers I do know there are different ways of counting edits, the obvious ones being as to whether to count the deleted edits or not. Kate's tool doesn't use them and thuis is always more than that. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing this list does not include deleted edits. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But according to Rlevse, he's accrued a tiny handful of edits in a period when he made about 4,500. I very much doubt that 4000+ of his edits were deleted in that period. The implication is that the system of counting has changed between Jan and Mar. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has. My edits on this list no longer include deleted edits and they even appear to be lower than Kate's tool edits of about the same time as this latest list was created. Dr.K. (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The previous list was of all edits (deleted and not). This one is of only "current" edits (non-deleted). That would be the reason for a drop or only a small bump. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How about CONSISTENCY??? We can't be changing from one count method to the other, certainly not without telling people. We should COUNT ALL edits, including deletions. Please run a new report the same way they been run for years. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the fuss all about anyway? - Surely what counts (pun not intended), is the quality of your edits, not where you happen to appear on this list? It does say after all "The list provides an indication of the contributors to Wikipedia who have made a high number of edits. It is a reference summary only. Therefore it should be taken with a large grain of salt and not used as a measure of individual editors." Pahari Sahib 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is that if we're going to keep putting out such a list for people to use for whatever reason, the list should be produced in a consistent manner so that it is reliable and accurate, not changing willy nilly to make it worthless. No one has made the claim you're making. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making any claims - I just quoted from the Caveats section. Pahari Sahib 02:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is according to the last two runs, I've lost 4500 edits. I DON'T THINK SO. No one is claiming where we fall on the list is of high importance, it's just nice to know sort of thing. BUT if it's going to be maintained, it should be accurate and reliable and run in a consistent manner and this last run most assuredly is not...and the difference is not from not counting deleted edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware autumnsnow had access to toolserver, and I still think he hasn't. This list must be compiled only with TS data. I haven't been able to do it, if somebody wants to do it properly - somebody who has toolserver access -, I can pass along the query and the regex. Now, I'll try to do it in a few days, but I can't guarantee much, I'm quite busy in real life. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevse here, if this list is going to be kept, then it needs to be consisted so far as the way it is counted, considering the large number of people involved, and the highness of the numbers compiled. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments.

I updated this list. Instructions describes that there are different ways of counting edits. The previous list was derived from the Toolserver database. This list is derived from database dump (http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/). I do not have access to the Toolserver. --AutumnSnow (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thus the inconsistency is revealed. I advise that consensus need be derived as to which source future updates should be hauled from. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It may also be a matter of prudence to re-upload this list, now based on the Toolserver rather than the other dump. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is important. As neither system is inherently better or worse than the other, the list should continue to be based on an inclusive count including deleted edits. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Until this is returned to the way it was, this list is useless in its current form. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. An utter tragedy. Let's call our MPs or Senators. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

By activity

Since this now seems to be in table format, would it be possible to add a column (each) for first and last edit? - jc37 01:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)