Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
Keep, 12 November 2022, see discussion. Snowball keep, 26 May 2008, see discussion. No consensus, 18 October 2007, see discussion. Speedy keep, 3 January 2007, see discussion. Keep, 10 July 2005, see discussion.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Alexandru Micu (2020-05-05). "Meet the Internet's unsung heroes: Wikipedia's human collaborators". ZME Science. Retrieved 2020-05-06. Wikipedia actually has a pretty interesting page dedicated to tracking the most prolific authors on the site. All contributors are equal in the eyes of the site and its userbase, so this list isn't about giving anyone bragging rights.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcut

WT:EDITS

Table 1 and Table 2 are confusing, at best, and absurd, at worst.

I would tend to think, and I think most people would think that "

Registered editors by edit count (only successful contributors)

"

is a subset of "Registered editors by edit count (all registered accounts)". So I am, and I think many others would be, very puzzled to see that in many rows the subset seems to contain more members than the set.

For example, having exactly ten edits means one is among the "top 2,330,000 of all users", and also among the "top 2,804,000 of all contributors" in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. This seems to be a mathematical impossibility.

Polar Apposite (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have contributers who don't have accounts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have registered editors who don't have accounts? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have IP addresses that have linked contributions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would that mean in layman's terms? Polar Apposite (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Apposite (nice user name), what do you think about Table 2 being moved to the Table 1 slot? Would that unconfuse the issue. I'd personally prefer that. It's like, you can sign up for a marathon but not run it. If you don't run it you can't go around saying "I competed in the All-State Marathon". Editors who have edited are Wikipedian editors, those who haven't are not yet Wikipedia editors. Maybe a commonsense viewpoint. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I like your user name, too.

Do you want to swap the positions of Table One and Table Two? Or delete Table One? Polar Apposite (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally just switch the two. Table One has its uses per individuals who have taken the time to sign up as potential editors, although most have not edited. The present table 2 seems to have much more information relevant to this page, and gives a clearer picture of who edits the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've no particular objection to their being swapped, but it seems like swapping deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is the seeming contradictions between the tables, and the lack of clear meanings for terms like "editor" and "user" (I had thought the users were our readers).

BTW what about merging the two tables into one, perhaps with some extra columns? Polar Apposite (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A row for zero edits?

A row for zero edits would be useful, I think, because you'd get to see the big picture, i.e. the 46 million total (of "users" ?), and it would set everything else in context nicely, I think. For example, where it says,

"1 edit...top 30% of all users...top 14,000,000 of all users... ("That's more than") 70%",

the implication is that 14,000,000 is thirty percent of all users, which implies that there are 46,000.000 users total. And every other row has the same implication if you do the math. So I think, for the sake of completeness, the zero edit row should be added, and boxes marked "not applicable" wherever that is the case, perhaps with a footnote explaining why it is not applicable. Polar Apposite (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New column

@Legoktm: @0xDeadbeef: Would it be possible to add a new column to the table with the editor's first year of edits, pulling data from either user creation or a user's first edit? Here is an example: Cards84664 16:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1–1000

No.	User	Edit count	User groups	Joined
1	Ser Amantio di Nicolao	5,749,777	AP, Ad	2006
2	BrownHairedGirl	2,942,733	AP, ECo, EM, F, N, Rv, Ro, TE	2006
3	Jevansen	2,493,277	AP, ECo, EM, Rv, Ro	2006
4	BD2412	2,296,876	AP, IP, Ad	2005
5	Koavf	2,159,245	ECo	2005
6	Tom.Reding	2,015,689	ECo, EM, TE	2009
7	Materialscientist	1,969,031	EFM, AP, Ch, Ad	2008
8	Rich Farmbrough	1,714,130	EFM, AP, ECo, F, Rv, Ro, TE	2004
9	Lugnuts	1,509,055	ECo, Rv	2006
10	Bearcat	1,437,873	AP, Ad	2003

Bot resting again

The bot has not updated this page for some time, I should be at 128,553 not still at 128,186. Catfurball (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, see the related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports#Wikipedia:Database_reports/Untagged_biographies_of_living_people_didn't_update_this_week. The bot has evidently been missing several reports of late. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was just me! Was seeing no updates since couple of days. Jay 💬 05:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what gives!? Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Y Working again!~~ Jay 💬 09:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to be having trouble again. This page still has me at 129,378 edits, when I currently have 129,747 edits. Catfurball (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I thought I was going slow on my edits, which is why no changes were reflecting. Jay 💬 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is around 12 days since this list was updating properly. Is anyone actually trying to fix it ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Derek R Bullamore: It's a bot-built report, the bot concerned being HaleBot (talk · contribs), for which the bot operators are Legoktm (talk · contribs) and 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs), who are not necessarily watching this page (Legoktm last posted here more than six months ago, and 0xDeadbeef never has). Have you tried asking them directly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I wonder generally who are aware of this. Not me, for sure. Anyhow, I will ask one or the other of them if they can take a look. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Saturday, in response to a related issue with the same bot, I was told at Wikipedia talk:Database reports#HaleBot healthy? that it was "something to do with toolforge problems" which Legoktm confirmed. Since then, the weekly reports have updated in the last couple days, and I expected this one to finally update as well, but it has not. DB1729^talk 19:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Halebot cannot be fixed maybe it should be replaced with another bot. Catfurball (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is there are very few editors that are both capable and willing to troubleshoot, fix, and generally babysit any bot doing these tasks. To quote another editor: You can't just put Toolforge jobs on autopilot and expect them to run forever.[1] DB1729^talk 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and the Foundation has how much money and how many tech workers to support Wikipedia? I've never understood why our volunteer bot creators and maintainers can't instantly call on assistance from Foundation personnel, at the very minimum. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (and others) could easily "instantly call on assistance from Foundation personnel". What's your point? Legoktm (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the Foundation collects massive donations to assist Wikipedia, and, sometimes like this, it may need assistance. If I'm wrong and they are on call 24-7, willing to help and willing to fund old and new bots, good to hear. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I can summon spirits from the vasty deep" —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this page isn't on my watchlist (it now is). I merged and deployed the fix and it's updated and should continue to do so. I will be honest that out of all the database reports, this is, at least in my eyes, one of the least important ones. HaleBot is collaboratively maintained, if people want to pitch in and help I'm always happy to help guide/tutor/etc. Legoktm (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears only 3-4 editors (Catfurball, Mr.choppers, Derek R Bullamore, me) regularly check or notice when the page stops updating. I can pitch in, but do I need to run a server locally to test any changes, or will my work always be on another server? Jay 💬 05:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this page has not updated again. Can anyone assist ? Thanks. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems fine — see the timestamp at /Age. The problem is with the analytics database — replag is currently over 3 days, so the bot is just re-processing old data — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The /age timestamp reads August 8 right now, but since the replag (I don't know what that is, I am just throwing around terms used by others) is 185 hours I guess it is moot. @Legoktm: I am not a coding kind of person, but if there are little things for me to learn I am always interested in picking up a new skill, however narrow. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers: See WP:REPLAG; to check it, see the section "Is there replag right now?", which provides this link - in that report, look for the row beginning "enwiki.". It's at 190 hours 26 minutes as I write this, which means that reports run from a database that is nearly eight days out of date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you may see here the Replag is back to zero, so the page should be updated again soon. Robby (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

This edit request to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add a hyperlink to the profile of number 2 user in this list, BrownHairedGirl (User:BrownHairedGirl). I was curious about her because her name openly suggests that she is a woman and I was at first disappointed because I thought she didn't have a profile. SophiaBZhou (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user name in black (unlinked) has not been used for editing in the last 30 days. Here is a link to her page though (User:BrownHairedGirl) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SophiaBZhou: Hi, the list is generated by a bot, which means any changes would be overwritten. As ~WikiOriginal-9~ indicated, links are only done for editors who have edited in the last 30 days.

One outcome of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute, was BrownHairedGirl banned: BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

I was saddened by this. I have not thoroughly reviewed the discussion, but my high-level interpretation is that BrownHairedGirl is an extremely highly productive editor, but that other editors believe that this editor has substantially violated community policy & guidelines. I hope that BrownHairedGirl appeals the ban after the 1st 12 months has elapsed, & will once again become a productive editor with a willingness to seek out & work within consensus. Peaceray (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Users by recent edits

@WereSpielChequers, @Arjayay: Reading Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 13#Expand the list to the top 15K, I decided to create quarry:query/85546, listing the statistics for the last 90 30 days (~~for now; as requested by WereSpielChequers and not by Arjayay, since this is what the recentchanges table provides by default~~ 30 days appears to be the limit on WMF projects). It might be slightly inaccurate since it's not counting page moves, but mainly it takes almost 10 minutes to complete in its current version (which might be reduced if you don't query the total edit counts, or exclude bots from the start). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]