Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nuvola apps kedit.svg Wikipedia milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2005Articles for deletionKept
January 3, 2007Miscellany for deletionSpeedily kept
October 22, 2007Miscellany for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2008Miscellany for deletionSpeedily kept

Links to user pages[edit]

I'm sure that the users listed used to be linked to their user pages, whereas looking at the list now, this isn't the case. Is there a reason for this? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: Please see User talk:MZMcBride#List of Wikipedians by number of edits (22 June 2019). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It's possible to link all the user names. Or we could fix the "was this user recently active?" logic to be less expensive. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Only half of the user name total was linked. A previously-visible disclaimer stated that "A user name in black (unlinked) has not been used for editing in the last 30 days", which accounted for approximately 50% of the 10,000 user names. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 15:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, techie (compliment! far oustripping me!) MZMcBride commented it out "for now" and seems to have some clue where the problem lies. sirlanz 16:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
On that point, while the disclaimer,"A user name in black (unlinked) has not been used for editing in the last 30 days", has indeed been commented out in the introductory text of WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, it is still visible, as of this writing, at the introductory text bottom of WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 14:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: In the interim, would it be possible to link all of the user names? I would personally prefer that method than the lack of links. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out if anyone still wanted the recent activity indicator. I feel like I added it for WereSpielChequers maybe? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Well remembered. I used to actively nominate at RFA, as well as set users as Autopatrollers etc, and this list was a good hunting ground, especially with the inactives unlinked. But I have a better list for autopatrol prospects and it may be a while before I do another RFA nomination. I don't know if anyone else is using this list for that sort of purpose. The other reason for only linking actives was that this is a huge page for anyone who doesn't have modern kit and a fast connection. I upgraded my kit a few years ago, so that no longer applies to me and I doubt it is anywhere near as common a problem as it was. So if you can't do a simple inactive active test such as whether an editor has the same edit count as when the report ran 30 days ago, then no major objection from me to losing the active/inactive test, just a twinge of regret. ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say it is useful assuming it does not take much effort to implement.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll add my two-cents worth. I miss the links to the user pages which used to be here. Can they be restored? Smallchief (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I miss the links also, but mostly the indication of recently active or not. MB 04:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. i wonder if a "months since last edit" number could be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WereSpielChequers (talkcontribs) 12:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Mention on the page why there are no links. Else the reader will suspect the page author is not aware of how to do it. Jidanni (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I had the exact same thought. Please add links to the user's pages. ~ HAL333 02:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I also request the user links be restored, with the recent activity indication as well. Jusdafax (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Does nobody appreciate that this won't be done? MZMcBride explained this at 06:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
MZMcBride did not say it won't be done, they said "The query used to determine which users were recently active seems to have gotten considerably more expensive. For now, I've disabled that functionality". "For now" implies not necessarily permanently. What is wrong with expressing an appreciation for the prior functionality. 05:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talkcontribs)
I miss the links also. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot-edits[edit]

Would there be a way to sort the list to include or excluse bot-edits? PPEMES (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It already excludes bots. There is Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits specifically for bots, but that hasn't been updated since 2014. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I threw together this ugly query to try to find unflagged bots:

select distinct log_title
from logging_userindex
where log_type = 'rights'
and log_params like '%bot%'
and replace(log_title, '_', ' ') not in (
select user_name from user
join user_groups on user_id = ug_user where ug_group = 'bot'
)
and log_title not in (
                   SELECT DISTINCT
                     pl_title
                   FROM page
                   JOIN pagelinks
                   ON pl_from = page_id
                   WHERE page_title = 'List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/Unflagged_bots'
                   AND page_namespace = 4
                   AND pl_namespace IN (2,3)
);
It produced this list:...


7SeriesBOT
ABot
Abotzi
Adlerbot
Admrbot
AEBot
AfDStatBot
AHbot
Albambot
Alirezabot
Alleborgo
A-lú-mih-bot
AMABot
Amolbot
AmphBot
Analphabot
Anibot
Animum_Delivery_Bot
AsgardBot
AstaBOTh15
AswnBot
AtyndallBot
AutocracyBot
AwOcBot
AzaBot
AZatBot~enwiki
BaldBot
Beastie_Bot
BendelacBOT
BenoniBot~enwiki
BepBot
Bersibot
BetBot~enwiki
Bgbot
Bikabot
Blood_Oath_Bot
Bocianski.bot
Bot523
BotdeSki
BOTepho
Botpankonin
Botryoidal
Bot-Schafter
Botz~enwiki
BoxCrawler
BücherBot
CataBotTsirel
CAT:TEMP_deletion_bot
Caypartisbot
ChandlerMapBot
ChenzwBot
Cherybot
ChessBOT
Chris_G_Bot_2
ChrisSalij_Bot
ChzzBot
ChzzBot_III
ClickBot
CohesionBot
Comics-awb
CricketBot
CSBot
CyeZBot~enwiki
DanielBot
Danielfolsom2.bot
DarioBot~enwiki
Dark_Shikari_Bot
DcoetzeeBot~enwiki
DeadLinkBOT
DEagleBot
DeliveryBot
Denbot
Deskana
DeskanaTest
Diego_Grez_Bot
DirlBot
DisambigBot
Dlyons493
DottyQuoteBot
Dpkbot
DrFO.Tn.Bot
DusterBot
DustyBot
DvyBot
DYKBot
EarwigBot_II
EarwigBot_V
EBot
EBot2
EBot_II
EBot_III
EchoBot
EdBot
Egmontbot
EgressBot
Eivindbot
EjsBot
EleferenBot
Elissonbot
ElMeBot
EnzaiBot
EssjayBot_III
EssjayBot_IV
EssjayTest
Eybot~enwiki
EyeEightDestroyerBot
FacebookBot
Fajrbot
FaleBot
FANSTARbot
FA_Template_Protection_Bot
Fetofsbot
Fetofsbot2
FFBot
Ficbot
FiriBot
Fritzbot
FritzpollBot
Geimas5Bot~enwiki
GeorgeMoneyBot
GhalyBot
Ginosbot
GnawnBot
GracenotesBot
Grammarbot
GrooveBot
GurchBot_2
GZ-Bot
H2Bot
H92Bot
Halibott
HarrivBOT
HasharBot~enwiki
HBC_archive_builderbot
HBC_RenameClerkBot
Heikobot
HermesBot
Homobot
HujiBot
Hxhbot
IcalaniseBot
IdeoBot
ImageTagBot
Innocent_iwbot
IPTaggerBot
IsraBot
IW-Bot-as~enwiki
JabbaTheBot
Janna_Isabot
Jayden54Bot
J.delanoy
JerryBot
JJBot
Jmax-bot
JMuniBot
John_Bot_II
Jumbuck
Kal-El-Bot
Kaspobot
Kgsbot
KiloBot
Kisbesbot
Kl4m-AWB
KonstableBot
Kumar_Appaiah_Bot
Kurando-san
Kwjbot
KyluBot
LDBot
LemmeyBOT
Le_Pied-bot~enwiki
LinkBot
ListGenBot
Lockalbot
log_title
LSG1-Bot
Lt-wiki-bot
M7bot
Madhubot
MagnusA.Bot
MahdiBot
MalarzBOT
Manubot
MartinBotII
MartinBotIV
MastersBot
M-Bot
MBot~enwiki
MCBot
MediationBot1
MelsaranAWB
MercuryBot
MessedRobot_II
Mgmbot
MichaelBillingtonBot
MichaelkourlasBot
Mihas-bot
Milk's_Favorite_Bot
Minsbot
Mobius_Bot
MonoBot
MoriBot~enwiki
Movses-bot
MrVanBot
Naudefjbot~enwiki
NavouBot
N-Bot
NekoDaemon
NeuRobot
Newsletterbot
NilfaBot
Nixbot
NobelBot
NodBot
NohatBot
Non-Free_Content_Compliance_Bot
NotificationBot
NotifyBot
O_bot
Ocobot
OldMedcabBot
OrophinBot
Orphaned_talkpage_deletion_bot
OsamaKBOT
PaievBot
PascalBot
Pathosbot
Pattonbot
PCbot
Pending_deletion_script~enwiki
People-n-photo-bot
Pfft_Bot~enwiki
PlankBot
Planktonbot
Plasticbot
PoccilScript
PockBot
PolarBot
Portal_namespace_initialisation_script
PorthosBot
ProtectionTaggingBot
Purbo_T
PxBot
QualiaBot
Rabbot
Rameshngbot
Razibot
RBSpamAnalyzerBot
R_Delivery_Bot
RedirectCleanupBot
Redrocketbot
ReigneBOT
RFRBot
R._Hillgentleman
RoboDick~enwiki
RoboMaxCyberSem
RoboServien
Robotic_Garden
RobotJcb
RSElectionBot
Rtz-bot
Sahimrobot
SamuraiBot
SantoshBot
SebrevBOT
SharafBot
SheepBot
Simplebot
Skumarlabot
Slobot
SMS_Bot
Snaevar-bot
SnakeBot
Snobot
SoxBot_VIII
SoxBot_X
SpeedyBot
SpillingBot
StefanBot
SteveCrossinBot
StormBot
StubListBot
SundarBot
SusBot~enwiki
SVGBot
SVnaGBot1
SwiftBot
Swimmingbot-awb
SXT-404Bot
Tanhabot
TARBOT
Tawbot~enwiki
TeckWizBot
TestEditBot
The_Anomebot
The_Auto-categorizing_Robot
TheJoshBot
ThisIsaTest
TinucherianBot_II
ToePeu.bot
Topjabot~enwiki
TorNodeBot
TottyBot
Tuonela
TuvicBot
TypoBot
UltraBot
UncatTemplateBot
VandalCountBot
Ver-bot
VFD_Bot
Vini_17bot5
ViskonBot
VixDaemon
VP-bot
VshBot
WarddrBOT
Werdnabot_(irc)
WikiBotas
Wikignome
WilhelmBot
WillieBot
WODUPbot
WolterBot
WOPR~enwiki
WuBot
Wybot
XeBot
XZeroBot
YekratsBot~enwiki
Yet_Another_Redirect_Cleanup_Bot
Yonidebot
Z-BOT
Zbot370
ZedlikBot
ZscoutBot
ZwoBot
Zxabot

There are a few false positives in this list, but most of the entries are valid additions for Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots. Would either or you (or anyone else) be interested in merging this list with the unflagged bots list? Once that's done and Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits/1001–2000 gets undeleted, I'd be willing to update the report. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I noticed actually there are a number of new users in the list of number with no "bot" in the name, somea re bot, some run bots, and a renamed account - a quick look gets these to look at (I've not got anymore time at the mo)
list...
  1. Alleborgo - not a bot - runs User:AlleborgoBot
  2. BoxCrawler - is a bot
  3. Comics-awb - is a bot
  4. Deskana - not a bot
  5. DeskanaTest - alt account
  6. Dlyons493 - not a bot
  7. EssjayTest - not a bot
  8. J.delanoy - not a bot
  9. Jumbuck - is a bot
  10. Kl4m-AWB - is a bot
  11. Kurando-san - is a bot
  12. log_title - not an account
  13. MelsaranAWB - bot ish?
  14. NekoDaemon - is a bot
  15. Pending_deletion_script~enwiki - not a bot
  16. PoccilScript - is a bot
  17. Portal_namespace_initialisation_script - is a bot
  18. Purbo_T - is a bot
  19. R._Hillgentleman - is a bot
  20. RoboDick~enwiki - is a bot
  21. RoboMaxCyberSem - is a bot
  22. RoboServien - is a bot
  23. ThisIsaTest - not a bot
  24. Tuonela - is a bot
  25. VixDaemon - is a bot
  26. Wikignome - not a bot
  27. WOPR~enwiki - not a bot - bot account is User:タチコマ robot

KylieTastic (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Some accounts are now in the unflagged bots list:

Animum Delivery Bot
AtyndallBot
EBot2
FFBot
HermesBot
Log title
MessedRobot II
NavouBot
OsamaKBOT
SteveCrossinBot
TeckWizBot
VixDaemon
VshBot
ZwoBot

Maybe Redrose64 can handle the subpage undeletion. We're getting close. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • So in attempt to do the final tidy I have removed the following as non bots - and added a couple more found
  • Alleborgo - runs AlleborgoBot
  • Deskana - admin account
  • Dlyons493 - retired user
  • EssjayTest - no live edits, 2 deleted
  • J.delanoy - retired admin account
  • KnightRider - not an account but found User:KnightRider~enwiki
  • Log title - not an account (but was in the list above?)
  • Pending deletion script~enwiki - no edits
  • ThisIsaTest -1 edit
  • Wikignome - retired user account
  • WOPR~enwiki - not a bot, but forwards to User:タチコマ robot - so added that to list - this also show us we have missed some - could check against Template:Bot transclusion on user pages (as too mnay other reasons could be on talk pages).
  • NavouBot - not an account (but was in the list above?)
  • TeckWizBot - not an account but redirect to User:RBot~enwiki that is
  • VixDaemon - not an account but redirects to User:VixDaemonBot that is
  • VshBot - not an account but redirects to User:O bot that is
  • ZwoBot - not an account but redirects to User:Zwobot that is
  • So thats changed the list from 492 accounts listed to 816 - thats all I intend to do for now. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! User:タチコマ robot is a flagged bot, so it's automatically included in this report. The focus here is unflagged bots. :-)

"Log title"/"log_title" is just a stupid mistake entry that came from the SQL column name.

We still have these accounts being listed in the unflagged list, even though the accounts no longer exist:

Animum Delivery Bot
AtyndallBot
EBot2
FFBot
HermesBot
MessedRobot II
OsamaKBOT
SteveCrossinBot

And we're still waiting on the subpage undeletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully you mean Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits/1001–2000, in which case,  Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. I also learned that there's a tool that can query this data. The Wikidata numbers, for example, are wild: <https://tools.wmflabs.org/hgztools/botstatistics/?lang=www&project=wikidata&dir=desc&sort=ec>. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Why are there negative counts? Positions 1102 down. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I suspect these are former accounts that have since been renamed and no longer exist, like our friend Animum_Delivery_Bot. Whilst an account that exists but has zero edits would be zero. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes they are non users and have already been removed from the list (here) so should disapear next run. KylieTastic (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs) (position 1077) is credited with one edit. Per the bot's user page, is this grounds to block immediately? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hah. Must be a deleted edit?
I went with "-1" for nonexistent accounts because it seemed preferable to the script crashing and the report never updating. The report should probably just omit those users altogether, but meh. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits are not a Zipfian distribution[edit]

I was looking through the top Wikipedians by edits, and was surprised to see that this set does not follow a Zipfian distribution. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on why this would be, and whether the infamous 23 editor cabal might be responsible for the statistical anomaly. VanIsaacWScont 09:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanisaac, No but I see some scholarship on Zipfian distribution of words on Wikipedia:
You may have a thesis on your hands. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 09:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There are a number of possibilities here, Including: The theory that these counts do match Zipf's law exactly, provided you amalgamate all sock puppets known and unknown and measure by human rather than by account. The theory that we obey Zipf's law across the whole of Wikimedia but not on individual projects such as EN Wikipedia, and the possibility that we obey that law if one applies the appropriate weighting to minor edits. Room for several PhDs to be earned there.ϢereSpielChequers 12:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Or the more prosaic actual explanation, that you're looking at a four-way split between "editors who are running an unauthorised bot on their account", "editors who stick to the rules but are doing mass semi-automated high-speed editing", "editors who are very active but have multiple accounts" and "everyone else". Split those groups into four different charts, and you'll very likely get the neat clean curves you were expecting. ‑ Iridescent 13:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
When I plot 1e+8/edits versus rank, I get a curve that closely matches a hyperbola, asymptoting to a line approximately parallel to y=x. It's a remarkably clean curve, more so than Wnt's curve fit done in 2009. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Edit Count[edit]

I just wanted to know why my edit count appears to be incorrect. It was updated today, and it appears that I have 200 to 300 more edits than the list indicates. Could it be that the page I edited doesn't count towards my edit count or something? All help will be greatly appreciated. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not just for you, thus is for everybody. Database lag or smth.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Database lags by two days based on my observations. Hwy43 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Rep lag was up to 50 hours at one point - see https://replag.toolforge.org/ for the current situation. It got down to zero earlier, but currently over an hour. KylieTastic (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
There's also the difference (at least for me) in the number of edits that the edit counter shows in the 'basic information' section and the number in the 'global edit counts' line for en.wikipedia. The latter is usually ~50 edits lower, and it's the number on the list. Also, the bot runs the report once a day. If you start editing after that day's list appears, you'll need to wait until the following day for the numbers to change. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Going backwards[edit]

The current list (see timestamp) is "as of 04:41, 02 August 2020" - yesterday morning it was "as of 04:00, 03 August 2020" and yes, the numbers are smaller than yesterday - Arjayay (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:VPT#Replication lag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

How often is this list updated?[edit]

I'm curious because it says that the last revision occured on "09:50, 23 December 2019‎" and I'm pretty sure I fall into the top 10,000 now. Is it done yearly or is there no regularity to the updates? - DovahDuck (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)