Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Bot resting
The bot seems to be asleep — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Database reports. Legoktm (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of bots
The latest list (2023-01-02) suddenly includes MalnadachBot and Cydebot at the top of the list - KasparBot at 11, CmdrObot at 112, ProteinBoxBot at 299 - there appear to be more bots further down - Arjayay (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are several more, and I have already . This is something that should be done at the same time that the bot flag is removed, if not before (as in the cases of BHGbot and FlagBot). -- Red rose64 &#x1F98C; (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In a related note, List of bots by number of edits/1–1000 hasn't been updated since Dec 30. GoingBatty (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * FYI, this was on 2 January. GoingBatty (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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 " "

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)


 * Because we have contributers who don't have accounts.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have registered editors who don't have accounts? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We have IP addresses that have linked contributions.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What would that mean in layman's terms? Polar Apposite (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

New column
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:  Cards   84664   16:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * Fyi, see the related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports. The bot has evidently been missing several reports of late. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it was just me! Was seeing no updates since couple of days. Jay  💬 05:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what gives!?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Working again! Jay  💬 09:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * Oh! I thought I was going slow on my edits, which is why no changes were reflecting. Jay  💬 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It's a bot-built report, the bot concerned being, for which the bot operators are and , 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? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * On Saturday, in response to a related issue with the same bot, I was told at Wikipedia talk:Database reports 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. DB 1729 talk 19:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If Halebot cannot be fixed maybe it should be replaced with another bot. Catfurball (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. DB 1729 talk 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ...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)
 * I (and others) could easily "instantly call on assistance from Foundation personnel". What's your point? Legoktm (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "I can summon spirits from the vasty deep" —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)