Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Ram-Man

Is User:Ram-Man a bot?

Acegikmo1 16:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That account contains a mixture of bot and hand edits, IIRC. Pcb21| Pete 16:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What Day and Time?

The project page states that this information is updated weekly. Out of curiousity, about what day and time is this done?

ClockworkTroll 17:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've thought the same thing. You can get an idea from the page history, but it would be good to state it on the page. A little harder - it would be good to include it in the .csv file too. -- Solipsist 18:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe, though am not certain, that the script is run on a download of the database and, may even be run manually. This script updates the CSV file. When I notice that the date has changed at the Wikipedia stats site this is my signal that the CSV has been updated. I then run my other script that converts CSV to wikitext and uploaded here. Thus there are at least one, and probably two, layers of manual work involved, thus no fixed day and time.

I am willing to send my script (in Python) to anyone who wants it - this should mean that the CSV -> wikitext conversion would happen more quickly after the csv becomes available. Pcb21| Pete 18:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Muchly manual - I assumed as much. One more quick question: The page was updated by Pcb21 to read October 2nd as the revision date, but none of the data in the CSV or on the page itself seems to have changed. Please forgive my ignorance, but am I missing something, or was something overlooked? ClockworkTroll 20:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I saw that the stats pages had been updated to October 2nd, so assumed that the csv had been updated, and ran my script to update this page. Unfortunately the csv file had not actually changed. This seems to have been a temporary problem, as the Oct 10 update seems to be back to normal. Pcb21| Pete 16:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. The data was put on the page in September, so it can't be from October. Acegikmo1 21:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ack!

I'm less than a 1000 edits away from the #1 spot in the ==All namespaces== list! Honest, I'm not a bot. --mav22:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So you think you are not a bot... Although you might enjoy activities outside of Wikipedia and memories of a full and rich life, can you be so sure you are not a replicant? :-) -- Solipsist 10:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And to think, I was here to see it happen. -Litefantastic 23:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do you have proof for that? :) -- Schnee 00:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have many fewer edits than you, and I am a bot! ClockworkTroll 03:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- (No, I'm not.) ClockworkTroll 04:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! Dori | Talk 03:59, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Bots

What is the best way to treat bots in this table? Treat them like ordinary users as now, mark them as a bot but keep or remove them completely? The solution would need to deal with the fact that some accounts are mixed bot/manual. Pcb21| Pete 06:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I implemented one solution. Pcb21| Pete 17:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think having the bots entirely separate from the regular users is a bit confusing, not to mention unfair to such users as Ram-Man, who (I believe) is only partially a bot. Supposing the word "(bot)" were added after the usernames of bots? Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could do it that way, and I did consider it. In the end I went the whole hog and separated them - your point about Ramman is fair but he is unusual because he created the first bot, all bots since have their own accounts as a matter of policy. Ramman's place in history is assured so I hope you wont be too offended. On the other hand, I don't that folks like Mav, Olivier, Bryan Derksen etc get their fair due when their are surrounded by a bunch of bots. What I don't like is the positional change information includes changes due to bots, I am thinking about how to avoid this. Pcb21| Pete 13:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've now implemented an alternative solution that I like much more. Pcb21| Pete 16:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An anon suggested that Timwi should be counted as a bot, Schneelooke reverted, who is right? Pcb21| Pete 15:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a vandal to me. Timwi has a flesh-and-blood type user page. ClockworkTroll 16:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Timwi runs a Perl script, listed here, which automatically corrects double redirects. If you take a short look at his user contributions, it can be easily seen that these non-human edits (all marked with the edit summary "fix double-redirect") make up a significant portion, if not the majority of his edits. Since User:Ram-Man, who is a real person and an admin, is listed as a bot due to originally running what became "rambot" under his account, Timwi should also be so listed. Of course it would've been better if Timwi got separate bot account, but he has indicated no desire to do to get one (User_talk:Timwi/Archive/Apr_04#Your_bot).

Keeping bot edits separate is good for several reasons (e.g. it is easy to write a bad bot, however well intentioned you are, and sometimes the only way to stop the bot is to ban it, but we wouldn't want to be in the embarassing situation of banning excellent contributors like Timwi) thus I propose to keep Timwi and Ramman listed in grey - hopefully they won't mind too much - and this page will act, in some small way, to reinforce the bot policy. Schneelocke, Clockwork - is this ok? Pcb21| Pete 21:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should get a statement from Timwi (and Ram-Man) on this first. I know Timwi, and I do know for a fact that he is not a bot, so it would be unfair to label him as such, even if he utilizes a bot occasionally. In particular, it would be nice to get an idea of how many of Timwi's edits are bot-edits; if it's, for example, 90%, then it would clearly be justified labelling him as a bot, while if it's, for example, 10%, it wouldn't. -- Schnee 22:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

4148 of Timwi's last 5000 edits (83%) were bot edits. The percentage is probably lower overall, but I don't have the desire to check all of his edits.

How did you come up with that figure? -- Schnee 23:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I saved the 5000 edits to a text file and ran it through a Perl script that incremented for every line that contained the bot's edit summary of "fix double-redirect".

Then I don't see why you can't do the same for all of his edits. -- Schnee 23:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the server times out when you set the offset too high... so I don't have time to try to get those pages to load. You are of course free to try.

If you give me the script... -- Schnee 00:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok:

$count = 0;
while(<>){
 if($_ =~ /fix double-redirect/) {
  $count++;
 }
}
print "count=$count\n";

Ah, OK, thanks. I think that can be shortened to "perl -ne '$count++ if(m/fix double redirect/); END { print $count; }'" actually; in any case, I'll look through Timwi's history and see what happens. That being said, I think that even a large number of bot edits would not be enough to label him (or Ram-Man) as a bot. It would be appropriate to include a note about the bot edits, of course (something like "an estimated XYZ of these edits are bot-edits"), but it wouldn't be fair to totally neglect the manual work he did.

Anyhow, I managed to get the first 10000 of his edits without a timeout; let's hope the rest will work out, too. ^^ -- Schnee 00:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How are bots identified? Is this being done manually, or is there a list somewhere?

Update

Is there any way that this page can be automagically re-generated every week? The date on the page now is from a month ago, though the list was updated at some unknown point after that. It just seems to me that there is too much required human interaction in this task for it to be reliable.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all of the factors against such a thing, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be a large undertaking to write a cron job to run every week or so during off-peak hours, and it would be a nice little thing for motivation purposes. Just a thought. ClockworkTroll 15:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some thoughts and options. You'll know from the above talk how this page is updated. It firstly relies on a successful database dump. This step probably can't be trusted to cron without fail, because it involves chucking gigabytes of data around (I believe). However if lots of people like the data on this page - and more so than the more restricted list on the stats page (only has 50 users), then we should appeal to Erik to change his script. Then this latter script (my python script) would be redundant, and at least some time would be saved. What do you think? Pcb21| Pete 16:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feared there would be such an impediment as a large DB dump. Personally, I find the CSV much more useful than the page itself because I haven't yet earned a place on the main list, but I would assume that the larger (1000 wikipedian/list) page is more useful to many simply because earning a place on that list is much easier than making the "top 50", and therefore doesn't seem to be an impossible challenge and therefore a useful motivator. ClockworkTroll 17:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes the 50 is not enough, but I am sure it would just be one line to change in Erik's script. Incidentally when I arrived here 22 months ago, you needed about 600 edits to get into the top 200, then I changed it 500 entries in the list and then later to 1000. But the minimum requirements are still higher now (about 1000 edits) than then. I can change the number of entries by changing one line of my script if need be. Pcb21| Pete 19:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bots

Hey, I'm not a bot, nor do I have the bot designation, yet I'm listed as such on the list! To clarify a little bit, most of the edits that I performed under the account "Ram-Man" were actually done manually by hand. That may be hard to believe, but I used complex SQL queries and other data manipulation on my computer to create the article text, and then I manually cut and pasted the articles into Wikipedia. It was a long and tedious process, but the rambot itself (which automated the process) was not invented until some time later. As such, many of the "bot" entries are not actually entries added by a bot. It is true that the rambot used the "Ram-Man" account for a short time before moving to "rambot", but that represents fewer edits than at first assumed. -- Ram-Man 12:04, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Any reason why Robbot has a ranking number when none of the other bots has? Perhaps, given Ram-man's human condition, Robbot's number should be removed, Ram-man should get a numbber, and the rest of the top 20 names should have their numbers changed. This is, of course, assuming that Robbot is a bot and Ram-Man isn't... Grutness 07:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We need a resolution

I've already reverted this page twice, and before breaking the three-revert rule, I'd like to ask what exactly is supposed to be going on with this page. I am inclined to revert the latest entry because it was this person's first edit, and is a repeat of another similarly garbage username's last edit here. However, that reverts to Ram-Man not being included in the list. What exactly is supposed to be happening here? [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 20:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it important in the long term? If the script that makes this page is modified to correctly identify all the bots and part-bots and mark them correctly, then when the page is next updated (once a month - in a couple of weeks?) the problem will go away, right? Joe D (t) 20:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the end, you are correct, when it's updated it won't matter. However, if someone decides to continue vandalizing it if they don't get their way, then we're back to square one. I'm just worried this fight will repeat every month. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 23:26, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's been almost a month this time around... kind of thought that's how long it's supposed to be. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 03:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you get off your backside and update it every week then, assuming it is physically possible?

That's not a very helpful comment, Mr. Anonymous. User:Mo0 was not complaining, merely commenting, I think. You possibly need to chill out and remember this is a volunteer effort. Quite why there is such a spat about who's edited more tham whom, the Lord alone know. (Though that said, one more edit to me...) --Tagishsimon, number 166 or nearest offer on the list that counts

It is rather naughty of you to re-format my comment to make it look like I was replying to Mo0, when of course my comment was directed to Ben - who was sharp about it needing to be weekly updates not monthly - and then take me to task for being rude to Mo0.

Because I don't know how, and don't even know if I can. All I am asking is that a consensus be reached on the issue that is causing so many edits and reverts here. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 21:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Odd results in the CSV

Something isn't right about this week's CSV...

This is the data I got last week:

Main namespace edits (last 30 days): 320 (214)
Non-main namespace edits (last 30 days): 735 (653)
Total edits (last 30 days): 1055 (867)

This is what I got this week:

Main namespace edits (last 30 days): 158 (114)
Non-main namespace edits (last 30 days): 150 (133)
Total edits (last 30 days): 308 (247)

My number of contributions is almost 1500, and I'm reasonably sure that I didn't make any negative edits, so it's safe to say that there's a little glitch somewhere.

Just a heads up to anybody that relies on the CSV results that hasn't noticed already.

ClockworkTroll 04:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update - seems better now. ClockworkTroll 18:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed something similar in the listed more up to date but untabulated list which credits me with 308 edits (my contributions list is currently around the 2000 mark). This could, of course, be related to exactly how much more up to date it is, but my 308th edit was on about Oct 20th. Grutness 06:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WP:PNA

I'm flagging this page as needing attention as the data on it are now a month old and it needs updating. PedanticallySpeaking 17:17, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Update script

zwitter has created (and released into the public domain) a python script for producing a list of users by edits which I've modified slightly to format in wikitax and uploaded here. I don't know python so I can't say if my changes will work. To use it you'll need to take the database dump and create a users table:

create table kate_curold users (select cur_user, inverse_timestamp from cur) union (select old_user, inverse_timestamp from old); create index user_timestamp on kate_curold_users(cur_user, inverse_timestamp);

and add the data from the db dump to run the script on it. I don't have the time (and probabaly don't have the expertese) to do this myself, so I've left the script up for somebody else to play with. Joe D (t) 17:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just threw together a PHP script that parses the CSV data and creates the list. I'll see about posting it later after I tweak a few more things. - MattTM | talk 19:34, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

The list hadn't been updated in over a month, so I went ahead and ran my script. I tried to match the style of the previous output as closely as I could. If anyone notices a problem with new list, tell me. I'll update it again next week if no one else does. I'm not sure when the CSV data is updated, so I couldn't fix the date at the top of the page. - MattTM | talk 00:16, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Updates

Either the date at the top of the page is wrong, or I'm getting an old version of the csv. not sure which. --DMG413 03:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The CSV wasn't updated this week, but it was updated last Monday. Even then, the contents seemed somewhat suspect to me (numbers were clearly a bit low, and the initial CSV contents that day were from 3 weeks prior). -- ClockworkTroll 04:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As noted in the discussion above this one, I updated the list with the most recent CSV data, but I was unsure of how old the data was. Going by CT's above comment, I'm guessing the data I used was from November 8th. I'll fix it. - MattTM | talk 04:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Is this page still actively being updated?

It's been almost 3 weeks since the last update. Is anybody still bothering with this? [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 07:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was updated once a month, so don't start worrying yet! Grutness|^hello?

I see. I misread the statement that says the raw data is updated weekly, thinking the page was. My bad. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 08:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It used to be updated weekly; I hope to start doing that again. For now I updated the main namespace list using the Perl one-liner update script. Crude, I know... --Ben Brockert 01:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

I had been putting off updating the list because I didn't know when the CSV data had been updated. I'll just go ahead and do it anyway. - MattTM | talk 05:16, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Removal

What happened to all the stuff like positional change, last thirty days, and colour-coding based on bot activity? →Iñgólemo← (talk) 04:39, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

It's back. - MattTM | talk 05:17, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

It's only back for the "Main Namespace Edits" but not for All namespaces" Paul August ☎ 17:16, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

It never was there for that section. The data required doesn't exist in the CSV, so it would be a case of writing a script to compare pairs of (dated) CSVs, or have the (almost mythical :)) other script that generates the CSV updated. Pcb21| Pete 19:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any likelihood that the pages linked to at the bottom of this page (most recent edits etc) will eventually be updated? Grutness|^hello?

05:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a high probability that, at some point in the future, those pages will be updated. --Ben Brockert < 23:30, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions

The ranks need leading noughts to straighten the columns. Can you add a list ..by speed of edits? lysdexia 01:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adding spaces to even out the numbers shouldn't be difficult. There's no way to find people's editing speed without looking at each editor's contributions page, and even then it would be approximate. This page is generated from the CSV, which only contains the editor's username and their number of edits.

As a side note, do not edit people's comments. You are free to change anything in the article space, but please do not modify other people's text in the talk or user space. --Ben Brockert 02:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Question

Without loading that massive list, and without actually counting them, is there any expedient way I can check on how many edits I have, to the minute? EventHorizon 06:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup - Kate's tools (wonderful to see them back in action!). go to [1], select "Count edits" and type in your username. Grutness|^hello?

07:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Currently out of action Stirling Newberry 03:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True, sadly. However, as noted on the Village Pump, Kate has put an earlier version online at [2]. Grutness|^hello?

09:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Statistical analysis

Has anyone ever done any analysis of the number of edits? For example, creating a histogram of the number of edits and comparing it to the normal curve, as well as finding mean and standard deviation? I, personally, think that would be fascinating. I'm sure someone out there could whip up a program that takes in the number of edits from the SCV dump every week and graphs it all, as well as finds those statistics. LockeShocke 02:22, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've done some work on it. Stirling Newberry 02:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And? Got anything to show off? :) LockeShocke 18:01, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

A model of decision information using wikipedia Stirling Newberry 17:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Case of _size matters_

This list should be based on amount of text (+allowance for pics maybe) submittet. Else, I'll submit any change in an article in tiny bits and climb up the list like that. --J heisenberg 11:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And if you do do that, so what? Pcb21| Pete 13:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I meant it would be good if the list showed the amount contributed, not the number of contributions.--J heisenberg 15:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is simply a statistical list. It is not a "ranking" of Wikipedians by quality of edits or anything else. Some use the 'preview' button more than others, while some go out of their way to inflate their edit count, but the list should always (obviously) be taken with a grain of salt. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 16:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about a supplementary list_of_Wikipedians_by_text_submitted -- for example. Maybe I'd make the top 1000 then ,-) --J heisenberg 17:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It sounds good to have, but it is not practical to implement. Before you can rank a list, you have to keep count of each entry's delta. If such count was not maintained in the past, some processes must run through the database to "diff" each edit. Just imagine the degradation to the server while you generate the counts. I think I can do without it. Kowloonese 01:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

It'd only have potential if it was done via a downloaded copy of the database, rather than off the live servers. If that was possible, I wouldn't mind it.

The SQL can't be that hard... a join on user id versus diff of edits (only the positive ones). Someone with the capacity to download the DB would have to do it

Anyone can download the database (normally). Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 19:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing such a list either - but as a complement to this list, not a replacement. I realise my own placing is artificially high because I tend to write a bit, save, write a bit more, which lists me higher than if I saved all in one go once I'd finished, but it would be interesting to know how much the really prolific writers do write. it'd also have the advantage of removing a lot of the "change word X to word Y" bots. But, as I say, it would be nice to have that as well as this list. If it were possible. Grutness|^hello?

12:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Colour coding

The colour coding seems to have been switched off, but it's still there in the source. What's up? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk donate 06:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's there for the first list, but not the second. It's working fine for me on the first list. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Updating

Is anyone updating this list? Last data are from December 2004. User:Rsabbatini

It can only be updated when this page gets updated by the stats script. The stats script is not compatible with 1.4 version of Mediawiki. I believe the creator of the script (Erik Zachte) intends to re-do the stats script so that it works with 1.5. Pcb21| Pete 17:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I await the upgrade of the script. I should be in at least the top 1000 now. This last version says I'm in 17969th position with 8 edits! -_-; —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-12 22:59 Z

I'd also like to see this updated. Any ETA for this? Anything we could help with? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess part of the problem is that the full database with the change history has grown to well over 80GB. I believe that this list and the .csv was generated by running a script against a snapshot version of the database downloaded by a 3rd party. Now that the full database is so large it is probably impractical to download it in any reasonable length of time, and not so easy to find space enough to keep it. Perhaps it is time to have a word with the inclusionists - there is some harm in keeping every bit of information lying around. -- Solipsist 00:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Erm, no. The script was run on-site. The real problem was that the script assumed the database was in MediaWiki 1.3 format, whereas we now use 1.4. Since the database layout is changing again for 1.5, I don't think Erik Zachte plans to write a script for 1.4. Thus no stats. Inclusionists, as you were. Solipist, stop spreading the FUD! :). Pcb21| Pete 08:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well that is the impression given by the discussion above (Update scritp and Case_of__size_matters_) both of which recommend people to download the database and run their own script to update this page. -- Solipsist 15:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

† symbol...

I have the impression that it tends to be used to signify someone has died, so at first sight it looked as if Ram-Man was dead but still made 143 edits in the 30 days beforehand... Not important at all, I know, but perhaps another symbol? -- KittySaturn 08:59, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

You're right about it being a death notice, among other things (see Dagger (typography)). Maybe astericks could be used for the bots. Dralwik 15:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I totaly agree to use anything else than the † symbol. In [[3]] Ram-Man is the first user with that kind of symbol. I thought avid is dead...

Please use an astericks, or something like that.

I know it to be third in the heirarchy of that stuff. Once you've used one asterik, you use two for the second note, then a dagger for the third. -- user:zanimum

I don't see that as much of a problem. The symbol indicates a bot, which, being a bot, is not a live person. Since it is not live, it is, well, dead. Cheer up, people.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Haha! I laughed out loud when I read that. Very nice logic there. ^_^; —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-12 22:59 Z

Erik triumphs!

According to a message on wikipedia-l, Erik Zachte has mananged to do a stats scripts for 1.4... I'll try and change out the details soon and hopeful get this page going again.... Pcb21| Pete 21:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yay! :) – ClockworkSoul 22:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Updated using my old script. Pcb21| Pete 10:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bots not marked as such

The following are bots but are not shown in grey:

HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 13:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, added to the page and to the list of bots in my script, which is maintained by hand. Pcb21| Pete 14:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I generated pages

It's been bugging me that the HTML list hasn't been updated in some time, so I went and wrote a little app that generated tables from the CSV in the same format as we've had. I don't know how old the CSV data is, but it seems to be significantly more recent than the HTML page. Let me know if there's anything I forgot or otherwise got wrong, I'll be sure to update my code. – Clockwork Soul 22:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the arrows are pointing in the wrong direction. Tom Radulovich 22:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:KevinBot honestly says it is Bot at its user page. Also, it brags that on April 19 it made 31,850 edits, while you show 1K less. Mikkalai 01:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just take the data from the CSV: it may be outdated. I have no way of knowing when it was run. – Clockwork Soul 01:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The previous version contained the date when the script was run. Mikkalai 01:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last page had the date when the CSV was updated: I have no way of knowing when it was updated, so I removed it for now. When the CSV is updated again, I'll know and update the page accordingly. – Clockwork Soul 01:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed the arrows are pointing the wrong direction. I, personally, am now ranked 612th but it says I've droped 129 slots... even though I used to be in the 800s. ;) --tomf688^(talk) 01:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I can fix that! :D I'll update in a couple of minutes. – Clockwork Soul 01:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, Tom. It's all better now. – Clockwork Soul 01:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, nice job on the update. Also, you might want to mention somewhere that this list is as of April 21. --tomf688^(talk) 01:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Okay: added that. Glad you like it. I figured that I would take to updating this page whenever the CSV is updated. – Clockwork Soul 02:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"This is the list as of 27 April 2005". That doesn't seem right to me, unless I've suddenly doubled my tally in just over a week! I'd say it's more like data from early February. violet/riga (t) 22:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is that this is the data that was present in the CSV update during the week of the 27th... – Clockwork Soul 22:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't include edits to talk pages and the like? That might make it more accurate. violet/riga (t) 22:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why it would include data from main pages but not from talk pages: after all, all of the data is built from the same database... – Clockwork Soul 22:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Whatever it is, thanks for coming along and sorting this page out. violet/riga (t) 22:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I do what I can, but unfortunately I'm limited by the frequency, format, and quality of the data I receive. :/ – Clockwork Soul 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed

The following section is full of meaningless data. For example, what the heck would mean the change of 62,730 in position? There is a methodological error somewhere for the case of gainers, since downgoers look reasonable. Mikkalai 20:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Without prejudging, 23149 wikipedians have edited EN at least 10 pages, and presumably many more people have edited less than 10 pages. Someone going from no edits to a low number of thousand edits in the 30 days would rise from the bottom of a very long list indeed to feature in the top 1000 ... a jump of 62k, though odd looking, is well within the bounds of possibility. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Indeed that's true. I was skeptical at first as well, but upon inspection everything turned out approximately correct. Oliver Chettle (talk · contribs) has made all of his now 5363 edits in the last 30 days. That's very impressive by any standard. – Clockwork Soul 22:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Impressive, or insane? ;) --tomf688^(talk) 22:34, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive, my friend. Quite the opposite, I have found. ;) – Clockwork Soul 22:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

That's what I have in mind when I say that there is something inherently wrong in this approach. It is clear that there is a HUGE tail of occasional contributors, and the first column merely shows that a number of newbies suddenly became active. I would be more interested in mover and shakers among already active contributors, i.e., among those who already had, like, 1,500 edits before the jump, not after. Then there would be no such a stark contrast between the left and right sides. As a replacement of the current left table I'd suggest a third one, kind of "Jump-starters", the ones who went from, say, less than 100 contribs to some impressive number. And since we are speaking about the movement with respect to a "dormant" tail, a more informative data would be the number of edits, rather than change in the position. Mikkalai 01:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be easy for me to make the cutoff N edit before rather than N edits after, and you're right: it does make sense that way. I'll make the changes to my code now. – Clockwork Soul 01:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I reran the scripting including only users who had 1000 edits as of 30 days ago. Guess who popped up as the #3 positional loser? – Clockwork Soul 01:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Your new chart does not match its description. You say "among users that had at least 1000 edits in all namespaces as of 30 days ago.". – Grm wnr who has risen 956 should be 44th or better. She or he is 282 => was not in the top 1000 30 days ago. --Tagishsimon (talk)

That is an anomoly caused by the fact that the raw database rankings count all users in all wikipedias: German, Spanish, Japanese, etc. I specifically extract filter out all of the users except the EN language ones for this list, but I don't change the database-supplied ranking changes. – Clockwork Soul 01:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Then the introductary wording needs to be changed. If you can sum Position + Rise then you could surely filter out any that givce a result > 1000, and exclude these from the table, non? Bit 'tis a lovely chart; thank you for the work. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'm not sure what you mean by "filtering out any that givs a result > 1000". It seems unfair to remove any user that may have increased by a large margin that may not be a new user, although it seems perfectly reasonable to only consider users that had a minimum number of 1000 edits as of 30 days ago... I'm glad you like the chart though. :) – Clockwork Soul 13:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Movers and Shakers

These lists show the users with the 15 largest jumps in main space edit rank, both up and down, among users with at least 1500 edits in all namespaces.

Gained

User	Positional change
1 – Oliver Chettle	↑ 62730
2 – FuriousFreddy	↑ 59937
3 – Feco	↑ 58600
4 – TheParanoidOne	↑ 51514
5 – Vegaswikian	↑ 4340
6 – Kbdank71	↑ 4106
7 – FreplySpang	↑ 2353
8 – Zscout370	↑ 1636
9 – Jaberwocky6669	↑ 1527
10 – SchmuckyTheCat	↑ 1494
11 – Allen3	↑ 1431
12 – Justinc	↑ 1239
13 – JeremyA	↑ 1224
14 – Harry491	↑ 1116
15 – JIP	↑ 1062

Lost

User	Positional change
1 – Dr Zen	↓ 256
2 – Fantasy	↓ 234
3 – Irismeister	↓ 186
4 – Orthogonal	↓ 171
5 – Improv	↓ 170
6 – Carrp	↓ 165
7 – ClockworkTroll	↓ 163
8 – Wyss	↓ 160
9 – Ilyanep	↓ 159
10 – Pfortuny	↓ 153
11 – Perl	↓ 147
12 – Onebyone	↓ 146
13 – Xed	↓ 141
14 – Rotem Dan	↓ 139
15 – JesseW	↓ 139

Regarding the "movers and shakers" table

The above table of movers and shakers, is, I think, not a very good idea, which is why I have removed it from the page. If someone wants to generate the data for their own benefit and keep it to themselves, by all means, go ahead, but I do not think it belongs on this page. The existence of this table will further encourage people to compete over getting the prime position on the gained table, which I do not think is necessarily good for Wikipedia (think lots and lots and lots of trivial edits). And why should we "punish" Wikipedians who took a break of a month or so by putting their names up near the top of the page? —Lowellian (talk) 14:57, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for removing it. Shanes 15:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Also agree. Editcountitis is becoming endemic at RfA, too. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It's very interesting. --

Earl Andrew - talk 20:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Then the author can move it to his user page and announce that it can be accessed there for the curious. As Lowellian said, it encourages the posting of trivial edits to see the numbers rise. Go count pigeons in the park instead. Throw them some peanuts and you will have done something nice for God's creatures at the same time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it will encourage people to make trivial lists. What evidence do you have to back this up? --

Earl Andrew - talk 21:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia said this would encourage people to make trivial edits, not trivial lists. —Lowellian (talk) 07:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's called "herd mentality." We're seeing it on RfA right now with the massive number of votes for Bishonen, partly motivated by the desire to see a big number. People are often quoting edit numbers to justify (or sink) a nomination, yet numbers says nothing about the quality of the edits, or whether the editor is pumping up edits (intentionally or not) by failing to use the preview function. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I confess I am failing to use the preview function while making small edits, for a simple reason: the database speed is pain in the ass. I am already wasting my time here instead of going and get myself a mug of beer in a good company, and I have to spend two minutes to fix a one-letter typo. Also, at times it is better save and be safe than to wait until wikipedia recovers from a crash. Mikkalai 22:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

(I have no oinion on the table, per se, but) Another reason that I will often make multiple edits is that I intend to make edits in a number of sections of the article but want to edit section-by-section rather than to take on an entire huge article in one gulp. So each secction gets edited and saved as a discrete entity, leading to multiple edits all-in-a-row. And yes, sometimes (often?) one simply diesn't see the typo or obvious possible improvement until one pushes the "Save" button, no matter how many times one has pushed "Preview". And, finally, as someone pointed out above, the longer one waits before saving, the higher the odds of an edit conflict coming up or Wiki going down.

Atlant 12:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Cross-post from talk:RfA

I'm cross posting this from a discussion on Requests for adminship, where it has been suggested that people are automatically nominated after a certain number of edits on Wikipedia:

...I would recommend, however, that someone comes up with a list of non-admins who have produced high numbers of edits - it would give us some idea of who we are missing! Perhaps it would be worthwhile putting an asterisk after people's names on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits if they are admins, to make that search easier. In fact - I'll cross post this to W-talk:LoWbnoe, see what people think there... Grutness...wha? 01:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

See User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks! Do you update this regularly? Grutness...wha? 02:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I just created it. It was kind of a pain to do. I gather admins can run arbitrary SQL queries which would make it somewhat easier. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There was a time when we could, but that was at least a year ago. Most people who create specialised reports download their own copy of the Wikipedia database and can run queries on it to their heart's content.-gadfium 03:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)