Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vanished users[edit]

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

  • Per IAR or common sense or whatever else, I certainly agree that vanished users should be removed from this list. I can't really see any benefit from including "Vanished user [string of random characters]" instead of "[Placeholder]" and the fact that they've chosen to vanish indicates they probably wouldn't want to be included on this list in any way, shape or form. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. That the users in question would choose to be removed from this list were they aware of it is a reasonable presumption, and no public interest is served by having their scrambled usernames listed here. ‑ iridescent 10:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The current setup (as described in John of Reading's reply in the previous section and Redrose64's reply in the section before that) links someone's stated desire to vanish, to their edit count, to a history of edit counts, leading to their username. It is a prime example of Streisand effect. Bazj (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Bazj, the trail will remain; the Anonymous list only determines whether a user appears as Vanished User XYZ or as [Placeholder]. Looking back at the page's history, the first Random User and Vanished User entries were added in April 2011 courtesy of WereSpielChequers with edit summary "opting out some rtvs"; more accumulated over time and then the entries were all removed by Wizardman in November 2014 with the summary "rm disappeared users (their names won't be on the list by default, after all)". Then came the events of today. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, The difference may be between Placeholder and Vanished, but in practice it's a difference between "This is nonsense, count me out" and "I want to leave, don't follow me.". It separates out those who wish to vanish and highlights (and effectively denies) their desire. Bazj (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks BlueMoonset, I appreciate that, I wasn't aware of the history, doesn't change my opinion, but it's interesting to hear. WormTT(talk) 13:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Here are my reasons.
  • This is a common interest list. Vanished or not, we have to respect their contributions. Heck we even to respect contributions of banned users. We have to feel sadness and sorrow that some of them abandoned the project, while others step on the path of destruction, but we have to remember good things. The edit list is not some kind of award that can be stripped off. It is statistics (or so I was told long time ago).
  • re: would choose to be removed from this list:: Please don't read their minds and don't make decision for them. From what I understand, most of them left not wikipedia, but wikipedian community, which, they felt, was unwelcome to them. And now you reinforcing this negative opinion. Many of them did a lot for wikipedia, I don't think this is forgettable to them. What is more, many of them simply changed their user names, eg. because of harassment. The very fact you see them in the list means they were prolific contributors and hence long-term wikipedians, so in all probability they are perfectly aware of this list.
  • re: "I can't really see any benefit" - I see several benefits. respect (memorial, so to say). reminder (what the freaking heck happened they left). Without memory and self-criticism a community is sick.
  • "no public interest is served" - leave politicians to speak of public interest with undeniable authority. There is public interest.
  • re: with the reason that the "users have to add themselves". Yes. That's the whole point. Opt-out. "and want nothing more to do with Wikipedia" - but we don't remove them from all talk pages. We just change the name. May be they want nothing, but this has nothing to do with us.
  • Please notice that my name is first in the list. It is for the reason other than alphabetic. It is because of me this list was created. I did not want somebody involve me in this without my consent. For the same feeling, I disagree someone kicked out without their consent.
  • You did not explain what's the damage their names are to the project. "it ain't broken, don't fix it" . I saw some person removed himself from the exclusion list with edit summary "it is dominated by demibots, and I will be comfortably unnoticeable way down the list" . Now, what harm you see in "vanished users", unseen, unless you look for them very hard? - üser:Altenmann >t 14:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • re: "I want to leave, don't follow me." - Irrelevant. You can follow the talk pages and histories. You just don't know past name.
  • (BTW your "I want to leave" sample in big bright red was made to look as if it was a drama queen shouting. No. Personally, when I see the sig "vanished", I feel their pain, not vanity.) - üser:Altenmann >t 14:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
tl;dr, right? - üser:Altenmann >t 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The big red was supposed to highlight the Streisand effect of labelling the user as Vanished. So much for that great idea... *sigh* Bazj (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Streisand effect inapplicable: who cares? There is no drama in it for non-involved. And involved ones easily know who's'who anyway. I myself know a handful of "vanished" simply by seeing signatures in some heated discussion involving myself. (And just as easily I can suspect the original identity of new but very experienced accounts) - üser:Altenmann >t 15:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Just on the "most of them left not wikipedia, but wikipedian community", I disagree with that statement. I've been one of the crats looking after RTV for nearly a year and very few are "had enough of the community". Far more prevalent is "I'm being harassed, please hide my name", or "I want nothing more to do with Wikipedia at all". Of course the most prevalent is "Request for vanishing" and no reason. WormTT(talk) 14:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I was not careful in phrasing. That's what I meant and what I mentioned elsewhere as well: people were hiding from community. You, one of 'crats, and the remaining 'crats have better to understand. People don't request vanishing simply because they got cured of wikipediholism. If a person just bored with wikipedia, he quietly goes away. Request for vanishing is a sign of conflict. And please don't tell me they were all troublemakers anyway. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Having read all the above, nothing has changed my opinion away from strongly support re-replacing them with placeholders. I can see no benefit to forcing people to appear on this list other than as (a) as an act of spite ("you didn't obey our rules, now you must pay"), (b) as a badge of shame, or (c) to make some kind of arcane meta-point about how much work has been done by people who have since left Wikipedia, and I think it entirely reasonable to presume that someone who has specifically expressed a desire for anonymity would choose to be removed from WP:WBE had they known about it. Personally, I'd be strongly in favour of deleting this page altogether—it causes a lot of problems for very little benefit—but there are too many people who see it as some kind of high-score table. ‑ iridescent 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    Same here. I do certainly respect that many now-vanished users have helped the project a great deal, but trying to use that as an argument here implies the list is an awards table, leaderboard or some other reward. Edit count does not accurately measure much; being on a list of 'most edits' is not equivalent to "you are one of the top 10,000 most respected people on the site". I don't understand "May be they want nothing, but this has nothing to do with us." — there's a reason it's called courtesy vanishing. It's something that is polite to do, not something that 'crats have to do. This is exactly the same reason we have placeholders: no-one contributing to Wikipedia has the right to prevent people compiling statistics based on them, but it's a courtesy to let people opt out of this list if they don't want to be included in it, no questions asked. WP:VANISH describes the process as being used for someone who "for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits". Replacing their vanished account in this list with "[Placeholder]" seems like a logical extension of this. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a few vanished users to the list a while back, apologies if anyone finds that contentious. I appreciate that some people get renamed due to harassment and even go through cleanstart, but I'm not suggesting that we mark retired accounts with Placeholder. Vanishing is very different to cleanstart, someone who is vanishing wants their username not just renamed but is discarding it and having it renamed to something such as vanished user. Of course some change their mind and come back, but having their vanish account return to its former name would automatically stop them being placeholdered. If we decide to default to marking vanished users as placeholders then it might be an idea to include this in the advice about cleanstart and vanishing. ϢereSpielChequers 18:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that vanished users should be replaced with [Placeholder]. It somewhat defeats the purpose of vanishing to have their new random names-which are in fact placeholders already-to be enumerated here. (Disclosure: Worm That Turned pointed me to this discussion)xenotalk 10:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose commingling of "vanished user" with "[Placeholder]" on this list. Each of those descriptive indicators has a specific meaning which is distinct from that of the other. "[Placeholder]" is an active or inactive user who has deliberately chosen not to appear on this list, but is otherwise still discernible as one (albeit still unspecified as to which) of the 74 [as of this writing] Wikipedians listed among those at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous. "Vanished user", on the other hand, was a Wikipedian who chose to leave Wikipedia with an identity which obscures such Wikipedian's original user name. Wikipedians who have been around long enough (to accumulate a sufficient number of edits for appearance here) are presumed to be aware of this list. The fact that none has taken the direct step of requesting a "[Placeholder]" designation seems to indicate that none of the vanished users has considered appearance on this list to be of sufficient importance to take such a step. That said, if any of those on the anonymizing list or on the main list decides to be become a "vanished user" and requests such a label, then such request should be, of course, accommodated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    I think expecting everyone on the list to know about it without any sort of notification is unfair and unrealistic. Who are you to decide that "Wikipedians who have been around long enough ... are presumed to be aware of this list"? And even if they did visit the page long ago, or have some vague recollection that there's a page listing people by number of edits, what makes you think that every one of the 10,000 people on the list is (a) aware of their presence on it and (b) aware that they can opt out?
    But perhaps more to the point, users probably don't think "I must manually remove my name from Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits" when they make a request to vanish. The thought of what will happen to their name on this list probably hasn't crossed their minds. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 07:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Can a list be created of only active users? [additional comments][edit]

Over a year ago, on August 19, 2014, I posted here (Can a list be created of only active users?), suggesting the creation of an associated list with a nearly-same title, except for one word, "active", Wikipedia:List of active Wikipedians by number of edits. Two of the responses addressed the matter, with the first one, on the same day, positing that "the simplest answer would seem to be for the bot that creates this list to add another numeric column, skipping inactive users in the count", while the final one among the responses, six days later, on August 25, also stated that "[T]o create Wikipedia:List of active Wikipedians by number of edits you need to filter out inactive Wikipedians".
While examining an unrelated count of other individuals, I was reminded of that earlier exchange and decided on a 1000-entry sampling, taken today, September 9, 2015, from the middle (4501–5500) of this existing list (1–10,000). Here is the result:

  • 4501–4600 (51 inactive users, plus 1 [Placeholder])
  • 4601–4700 (58 inactive users, plus 2 [Placeholder]s)
  • 4701–4800 (47 inactive users, plus 1 [Placeholder])
  • 4801–4900 (43 inactive users)
  • 4901–5000 (44 inactive users)
  • 5001–5100 (46 inactive users)
  • 5101–5200 (54 inactive users)
  • 5201–5300 (59 inactive users)
  • 5301–5400 (52 inactive users)
  • 5401–5500 (50 inactive users, plus 1 [Placeholder])

Thus, at the 1000 midpoint of 10,000 users with highest edit counts, just over half (504) are inactive. If we extrapolate this count for the entire list, then about 5040 Wikipedians out of the top 10,000 are inactive. Sampling the "User contributions" of a handful of the inactive ones from the entire list of 10,000, I found a number who were very active on a daily basis in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, but have not made a single edit since then. Some of the very active early ones have not contributed for nearly 10 years, since 2006.
The suggestion of an alternative numbering column which would be "skipping inactive users in the count" is a good one but, in the end, it would still leave a count of the same 10,000 we have now. A separate Wikipedia:List of active Wikipedians by number of edits, however, would bring in an additional 5040 [more or less] Wikipedians who have not accumulated enough edits to appear on the current list. We would thus give a nod of appreciation to those hard-typing future top editors, without excluding inactive past contributors who would still appear on this current list (until, of course, they ultimately drop off by natural progression). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How about these "hard-typing" editors type faster? It seems this hall of glory is indeed for fast-typers, not for content creators. So I say let's not make their life easier and let this rat race progress in its natural way. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC) If you really want to make some meaningful distinction, why don't one create Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of non-automated edits. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Those who care to revisit last year's referenced section header will see that we've already had a version of this exchange. Suffice it to say, the exclusion of unflagged bots has been a major step, but such features as AutoWikiBrowser or Twinkle, which I never use, should not be begrudged, since these perform substantial, but tedious, minor (or not) tasks towards which no one would wish to devote time. On the other hand, those who have no interest in such matters and disdain edit counts, automated or otherwise, are not likely to bother with visiting this talk page or its associated project page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Those of us who disdain the current implementation of indiscriminate edit counts still bother to lurk into this talk page to see whether the attitudes are changing. No one questions the importance of these jobs, but assign their count to twinkle. I find it extremely worrying that a person who did 1 million mouse-clicks gets a world media buzz, but a person who wrote 300 Featured Article does not. One may repeat that my (or not my) suggestion is not feasible, until the maybe day come when someone gets an insight now to do it, so I will just keep reminding to new generations who don't "care to revisit last year's referenced section header". - üser:Altenmann >t 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
While it was never my intention to downplay or trivialize these caveats, which I perceive may be shared by a good number, if not a majority, of Wikipedians, the existence of this project page, akin to the work performed with the use of AutoWikiBrowser or Twinkle, should also not be begrudged. Just as we reward ourselves with Barnstars or mark our time on Wikipedia with service awards such as "Senior Editor" and "Master Editor", or join the Ten Year Society, or issue our own weekly newsletter, this project page is also a form of reward for those Wikipedians who devote years of work, energy and, of course, time, whether measured in years or number of edits. However those edits are achieved is not as important as the personal sense of accomplishment that those who find themselves on this list derive from their placement on it. Such lists are not commonplace: in addition to this one, there is only one other, the recently reactivated Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count, which would be the well-positioned venue to list "a person who wrote 300 Featured Article" if, of course, such a person desires to be so listed. My suggestion of a new list is more akin to "A" and "B" versions of the same list with about 50% more members. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the proportion of inactives is inversely related to the edit count, so the increase may be different than predicted. But the 10,000 currently active editors with highest edit counts would be a much easier list for a new editor to get onto, and I see that as a good thing as far too many aspects of this community seem out of reach to newbies. Whether you can find someone willing to run it is the more awkward question, the loss of toolserver and the labs problems have left us rather short of bot operators. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
On January 1, or earlier, I will post similar samplings for the top (1–1000) and bottom (9000–10,000) of this list to test such inverse relationship. However, even if an additional 35% or 40% (rather than the predicted 50%) user names appear on the new list, it would still be a positive reinforcement for many new editors, as you rightly point out. The code for the proposed new list may only require a slight tweak from the existing one, but as for asking someone to run it on a daily (or even weekly) basis, alongside this list as well as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count… one can only hope. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't find my name on the list[edit]

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

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

Not updating regularly[edit]

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

Hi Redrose64. I imagine the inconsistent report updates are related to Wikimedia Labs instability. If you look at the labs-l mailing list, for example this post or this post, the reported issues seem to align with what we're seeing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The December 2015 labs-l archives also indicate intermittent issues with cron and job queues. Bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

This not updating[edit]

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

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