Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 13

Bot-edits
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 List of bots by number of edits specifically for bots, but that hasn't been updated since 2014. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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:

There are a few false positives in this list, but most of the entries are valid additions for 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 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)


 * done KylieTastic (talk) 11:55, 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)


 * 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:

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:

And we're still waiting on the subpage undeletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you mean List of bots by number of edits/1001–2000, in which case, ✅ -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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: . --MZMcBride (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are there negative counts? Positions 1102 down. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  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)
 * (position 1077) is credited with one edit. Per the bot's user page, is this grounds to block immediately? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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)

Incorrect Edit Count
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
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. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits are not a Zipfian distribution
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)
 * , No but I see some scholarship on Zipfian distribution of words on Wikipedia:
 * https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6222198
 * https://www.jair.org/index.php/jair/article/view/10513
 * You may have a thesis on your hands. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 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. Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  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. &#8209; Iridescent 13:57, 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. &#8209; 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)

How often is this list updated?
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)
 * Hi List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000 it's updated daily but it is updated via the subpages such as List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000. Also you are on the page List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/5001–10000 @ number 9268. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The main page List of Wikipedians by number of edits is not itself normally updated. It transcludes five subpages, each listing 1000 users, as does List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000, these are linked from the "Related pages" box at the top of this page. These ten subpages are updated daily, usually just after 04:00 (UTC). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021
Linking usernames to their person wiki pages should be enabled, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pruitt Mysyq (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is a misuse of the WP:SPER process: the report is built by a bot, so if we were to edit the page to add links (and, btw, your link is to an article not a user page), the edit would be nullified by the next bot run. You would need to ask the bot operator to change the code; and this would be denied, see for example this section on this page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies for this. No idea that, or how I did it but it was not intentional. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. It's a bot-built page, so even if not reverted by somebody else, your changes would have been entirely discarded on the next bot run, typically round about 04:00 (UTC) each day. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I wouldn't want anyone to think it had been intentional. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Number of edits
Is the number of contributions taken from Xtools or from beta (the option located above the screen of registered users on the PC)? Dr Salvus (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's calculated as being the number of rows in your contributions that relate to actual edits, plus the number of rows in your deleted contributions that relate to actual edits. Actual edits are where you altered something in the text of the page, and exclude the following: page moves, image uploads and certain admin actions such as protection. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Links to user pages
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)
 * Please see User talk:MZMcBride. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  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 (talk • contribs) 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. ~ HAL  333  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). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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 (talk • contribs)
 * I miss the links also. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. If the activity indicator is too expensive, then linking all the names would still make the page more useful and would not add to the overhead. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If enabling all the names to be linked is indeed no more labor intensive than leaving all the names unlinked, then I too will echo those Wikipedians who would welcome the sight of all-name linkage. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Extending the list
There is a discussion at WP:VPR affecting this report. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Archived 02:56, 20 March 2021 —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Anchor by user
Could the bot add an anchor per published userid? So that I can link to. I just like to see my position as fast as I can. Thx. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it very easy to find you, without actually looking for you. You're right on my tail. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Landmark chart
Is it possible to have a landmark chart something like this

The column "That's more than..." is unnecessary.
Hi! Sorry if you already discussed it (I couldn't find it in the archive): Isn't the "That's more than..." column in the first table "Registered editors by edit count" a bit unnecessary? I mean, it's funny and you can see that's the intention with the "!", but I feel that the column "then you rank in the..." is more than enough. Or what do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorBenitoGarciaRocha (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Template talk:Registered editors by edit count would be the best venue for your comment. Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

List of CURRENT Wikipedians by number of edits?
Would it be possible to have the bot run the same list with the exclusion of editors who have not made a material number of edits in the last 12 months? Would be interesting to see if it shows a materially different picture, and would help us monitor attrition amongst our most prolific editors. Reading the archives I see that showed a few years ago that only about half the editors on this page are likely still around.

Many thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , it would indeed be possible, but not probable, given the limited resources and our dependence on the kindness of those who are willing to dedicate and donate their time and energy to this project which, in this case, means the kindness of MZMcBride. As you can see from the exchange at Archive 12#Can a list be created of only active users? [cont'd], those who ask for more are free to invest their own energies towards the fulfillment of their desires. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it would be difficult. Just add an if-then loop that knocks out any editor with-out at least one date later than today minus twelve months. Kdammers (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The coding isn't difficult, agreeing a definition of currently active editors is less easy. But the big stumbling block is likely to be finding a willing bot operator.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A recently archived thread at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 13 focuses upon some of these topics. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

how i can find REALLY most contrubitors?
this is about only english wikipedia.. i think this should be about all wikipedia.. Modern primat (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no page now about GLOBAL edits. Thingofme (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No links to editors
How come this doesn’t add links to the editors? WP:NOA links to the editors.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * CycoMa1 - Please see the section Links to user pages at the top of this page in the archive - Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I normally do not edit others' comments, but I did alter the location of Links to user pages since it has been archived. Please see WP:5P5 & WP:IGNORE. Peaceray (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:EDITS" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:EDITS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q28 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:EDITS" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:EDITS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ｑ₂₈ (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Number of manual edits?
Many editors rack up a lot of edits by using automated tools. I'm interested to see number of edits that exclude automated ones. Is that possible to determine? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this, too, . How should automated tools be defined, and is there a way to do that in the software? XTools includes manual uses of undo, pending changes reverts, redirects, and page moves in the same '(semi-)automated' category as Huggle, Twinkle, and HotCat: that seems a bit off. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are all edits performed with automatic tools tagged, like edits with AWB and WPCleaner are? GoingBatty (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but many are tagged. Maybe a first step would be to count edits that aren't tagged by known automated tools. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Should HotCat be included? It's pretty much just a search box. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What to do with site blocked editors on the list?
Since they can't edit any page...

then what do we do with them on the list? Sheep (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing. Why do you want to remove them? Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * since they're blocked anyways, maybe we can strike them out? Sheep  (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If we do this can I acquire Lugnuts' edit count? I think it's what he would have wanted. Jevansen (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you can if you want Sheep  (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we mark blocked/sitebanned editors on the list as such, we have marked rights before Thingofme (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah, maybe strike them out or something? Sheep  (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course not. As an extreme example, should O.J. Simpson be removed from NFL yardage lists? He ran them he gets them. Maybe a better question is how many of these site-banned editors have been banned for a long time and, depending on the seriousness of their on-site deeds, have possibly rehabilitated themselves or otherwise matured and could be offered another chance (even if they haven't asked for reinstatement). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed Randy Kryn, some people seem to be trying to censor/re-write history - which we do not do - Arjayay (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just an irrelevant piece of trivia. Some blocked users can be unblocked, so it's just extra maintenance and overhead. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think blocks should be noted in some way. I was inspired to post this by seeing Lugnuts listed with user groups "ECo, EM, IP, N, Rv". At first, I was surprised to find that advanced permissions weren't removed from blocked users (this obviously isn't the place to discuss whether that should be the case). But my second thought was that, if user groups can be listed, it shouldn't be hard to list block status as well. And I came to the talk page to suggest that, only to find there was already a thread about it. Plantdrew (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Non-indefinite blocks will expire at some point; non-expired blocks (including indef blocks) may be appealed. If a block expires, or is lifted before expiry, rights that were held before the block continue to be held. Rights are removed for their misuse; the block might have been for a reason unrelated to any rights held by the user. Anyway, if you want to change how such matters are handled, this is not the place. Try WP:VPR. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Some users request that they are blocked for a period of time (WP:SELFBLOCK) - typically to finish an assignment of some kind, without being tempted to edit - they don't lose their rights, nor should they be discriminated against by being labelled as blocked. The idea of an additional status is not as simple as it may at first appear. At the risk of going back over old ground, I think the reinstatement of links to users who have edited in the last 30 days, or whatever time period, would be helpful for this as well - I simply don't understand how we did it for years, and then it suddenly became too "expensive" in processing time. - Arjayay (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 13. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redrose64 - I am aware of that, hence my comments "At the risk of going back over old ground" and "I simply don't understand how ... it suddenly became too "expensive" in processing time". On 23 June 2019 MZMcBride stated "The query used to determine which users were recently active seems to have gotten considerably more expensive. For now, I've disabled that functionality." As was pointed out in the discussion you linked, "For now" does not imply that it is permanent. Furthermore, near the top of that discussion. MZMcBride stated "It's possible to link all the user names." If we are going to fiddle with this list's parameters, I would prefer to see all entries linked to the user's contributions - which apparently is possible (or was possible over 3 years ago) with little or no processing implications. A link to the user's contributions would immediately show their status:- indefinitely blocked, temporarily blocked (including the period and reason), partially blocked (including which articles) etc. and would also show when they last edited, partially compensating for the inclusion of all editors, rather than just those who edited in the last 30 days. This would provide more information than simply identifying currently blocked editors, as is being suggested above- Arjayay (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As for expense, doesn't the foundation reimburse or pay bot owners for the cost of their bots and improvements to the bots? Bots maintain Wikipedia, part of the donation pitch by the foundation and their public statements. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, WMF does not pay bot operators. They have helped with coding and maintaning a few bots, but most are maintained entirely by volunteers. As for linking users, the linked discussion is outdated. Database replicas were redesigned in 2020, which allows running more powerful queries that weren't possible before. For example I couldn't have run something like query/64398 before. Linking userpages is similar to that, so it is worth trying again. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , words fail me, but "ridiculous" comes to mind. Bots designed and created by volunteers initially encompass part of their personal contribution to Wikipedia as volunteers, but that seems much different than those same bots continuously operating on a minute-by-minute basis (or daily, as the bot that maintains this list usually functions) for years or decades in benefit of Wikipedia. Due to the way donations are asked for and the reasoning put forward in asking for those donations by WMF (as well as the income put into the large and hopefully growing endowment), it would seem that bot operators should not only be reimbursed or actually salaried (or paid as outside consultants?) in part or in whole for their ongoing bot operations (and maybe almost required by the way WMF words its donation requests) but retroactive funding doesn't seem outside of the scope of their work. Full disclosure: I do not operate or write for bots, and have as much computer tech savvy as a good 19th century writer. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A second "yikes" question this brings to mind. Are all important bots backed up by the Foundation somewhere? What if an editor who runs an essential or accepted as essential (like this page of user interest) bot decides they're done with it, had enough of Wikipedia, and packs it up and takes the bot offline. If backup by WMF of bots stored and operated by the bot operator is not being done - and I have no idea if it is or isn't - might I politely request that WMF, for the sake of the site that it funds and greatly maintains, get on this pronto. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If a bot goes offline, another operator can take over the task. Transition is easier if the bot is open source. Otherwise it just gets abandoned as has happened with many old bots.As I had suspected, it is no longer resource intensive to link to users. My quick attempt to replicate the current list query/67985 took just 17 seconds with link to userpage and also list whether they are currently blocked. @MZMcBride can you check this and see if you can add it to the bot? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that BernsteinBot has been "disabled indefinitely" by MZMcBride, just a day after we had discussed bots going offline. Fortunately is looking to replace it, perhaps they can add link to Userpages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which goes to show how fragile the bot structure is here. Bots can be turned off by their users and suddenly a big hole opens in Wikipedia. If a few more bots are switched off the regular operation of the site would be severely threatened. To repeat from above, the Foundation fishes for donors by promising to maintain Wikipedia - that's what donors pay tens of millions of dollars for the WMF to do. These bot creators and operators are not regular editors who edit at any time. They function at a different level. The major bots like Bernstein have to run all day or at least every day, and need to be fixed at home, at the users own expense, when something goes wrong. Or just as easily be switched off when their operators have major concerns such as MZMcBride has addressed on his talk page about this bot retirement. "Looking to replace it" sounds like a hope and a prayer. WMF collects tens of millions of dollars annually to maintain Wikipedia, but something seems broken somewhere between the accounting department, the bank, the promises to donors, and the people, such as, who play a large and key role in actually maintaining it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrong edit number
I noticed that the bot has stopped updating this list. This list still has me at 83,980 when it should be at 84,470. Catfurball (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bot has stopped working since the 2nd of June. I've gone ahead and notified the bot operator. Hopefully a reply will be gotten soon. Aidan9382 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that the bot has stopped updating this list again. This list has me at 92,609 when it should be over 92,900. Catfurball (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , please read quite a few comments down in the middle of the section below "What to do with site blocked editors on the list?". The operator of this bot has retired it since the Foundation has blocked him from what seems to be major bot positions. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Start at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Or see User talk:MZMcBride where discussion about his block and the bot is in progress. I haven't read it since it was only a few comments in, so I don't know if anything is being resolved. I hope so. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a new bot which has taken over certain reports, see Village pump (technical)/Archive 200. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Change article to make it clear it is frozen/not being updated
Following on from an addition in the first section of this talk page, made today, I think we should endorse the article to make it much clearer that the list was frozen on 10 October 2022 (UTC) - I know it says that in section 5, but I think it should be made clear at the beginning of the lead. Rather than my just being WP:Bold, I would like to suggest adding "as of 10 October 2022" after "This is a list of Wikipedians ordered by number of edits in the English-language Wikipedia." in the lead. Any objections / comments? - Arjayay (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It also says that it is updated daily. Why has updating been paused? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * YorkshireExpat Please read the first section of this talk page, as I referred to above - Arjayay (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The text should be accurate, and since the bot has become frozen and the numbers not being updated then the edits seem reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I well remember when this page went six months without an update, the longest update interval ever ... we survived! Compare the version on 31 August 2006 (UTC) with this version on 26 September 2006 (UTC). Also see Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 5 (I've just restored some fun discussion at archive 1 as well). At least these days the database has an edit count field ... and it was also mentioned in The Signpost back then! Graham 87 18:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by content/characters added?
I am curious if creating a "List of Wikipedians by content added" has been considered. I think those with a high number of edits probably use bots to make edits mass scale. I think a measure by content added might be more meaningful, if possible. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why added? why not deleted? We suffer from an excess of unsourced / inappropriate additions - Arjayay (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That might be of value also. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * List of Wikipedians by characters added to Good Articles, List of Wikipedians by characters added to Featured Articles, List of Wikipedians by characters added to the 100 /1,000/10,000 highest-viewed articles, List of Wikipedians by characters added to notice boards drama boards. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @OvertAnalyzer: There also List of bots by number of edits for those editors with separate bot accounts. Some Wikipedians a high number of edits on this list may manually use automated tools to make edits mass scale.  GoingBatty (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that should be "was" a List of bots by number of edits, since that was also frozen on 10 October 2022 along with this list. Let's try and get the main list back up and running before adding complications for the Bot designers (complications which, personally, I see as encouraging verboseness) - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My favorite thing to do is tighten sloppy language. I once added up the byte-count of all my edits (in article space) and found that the sum was slightly negative; i think the median was -3. —Tamfang (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

placeholder
What is placeholder with no usernames? 2409:4088:871F:9E7F:C10A:9094:A90A:6ABB (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See List of Wikipedians by number of edits -- DB 1729 talk 16:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

HaleBot
So, HaleBot has taken over BernsteinBot's duties updating the subpages that make up this list. Let's thank Legoktm for coming to the rescue. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconded - Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done Legoktm! Heroic! -- DB 1729 talk 16:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes excellent stuff; thanks. One 'question' though; note the blue links have returned. As I recall these were 'turned-off' – must be 2 or 3 years ago – as were corrupting the page somehow. Thought it might be worth mentioning. Eagleash (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was more than a couple of years ago, and the problem wasn't corruption, it was loading time. Things have moved on, many people have faster access to the internet, and I'm hoping that few or no users of this page now have problems loading this page. But if anyone does please speak up. Linking active editors does make the list more useful for spotting potential candidates for extra userrights, but otherwise I'm not sure of the benefit. Anyway, All hail halebot, saviour of this page!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't to do with loading time (client side) but with processing time (server side), see . So I really don't think that internet access times will be a factor. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Legoktm - Thank you! Will your bot also be updating the subpages of List of bots by number of edits?  Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

With the edit summary "(not currently true)", at 06:44, 23 June 2019 MZMcBride commented out the text, "A user name in black (unlinked) has not been used for editing in the last 30 days". Three years and four months later, this text can be made visible again under section header List of Wikipedians by number of edits. The text has been also restored at List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000, where it was commented out at 02:54, 15 October 2019. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Past MfDs
All past MfDs except the first one have been moved to the "nth nomination" title format to prevent any further confusion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of bot
Today's update to this list has suddenly added User:BG19bot - a deactivated bot that last ran in February 2017, so I cannot imagine what triggered its addition.. Please could this be removed, as the list is not supposed to include bots - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also reported at Wikipedia talk:Database reports as it is unclear where it should be reported. - Arjayay (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arjayay: This was also raised at Bots/Noticeboard. It was added bacause BG19bot and Makecat-bot recently had its bot flag removed. I have added them to List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots, which should remove them from the list in the next update. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt action ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ - there seem to be multiple noticeboards/talk pages, without clarity as to which one to use. - Arjayay (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Bot list updates stopped
@MZMcBride and @Legoktm, it appears that has stopped updating List of bots by number of edits. Could its functionality be restored? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is being done by Halebot, see e.g. for today. It is just this page is not really a list but a collection of subpages, each of which is updated individually.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ymblanter: Sdbk is asking about Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits, whose talk page redirects here. This is a separate list for bots only which has not been updated since 10 October 2022. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am sorry, you are right, my answer is not relevant to the question. Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the tasks were suddenly terminated on 10 October 2022, following which we were given . Further comments may be found in Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 13 and subsequent threads on that page, also those on this page down to and including Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. If you want HaleBot to take up a former BernsteinBot report, you need to ask . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Patches welcome, should be doable by forking this file. Otherwise I'll try to get to it by the end of the week. Legoktm (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fantastic; thanks! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Legoktm (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Legoktm: List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000 is updated once a day. Could you please help me understand why List of bots by number of edits/1–1000‎ is being updated hourly?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's only fitting that the bots care about the bot list more than the human list &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, oops. Legoktm (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, should be fixed (we'll find out in ~45 minutes). Thanks for noticing @GoingBatty! Legoktm (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"Successful"?
What's a "successful" editor? And why not explain that (or wikilink to it) in the table that distinguishes between "successful" and "all"? Which list am I on? Don't answer that third one. AndyJones (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * These charts come from Registered editors by edit count and the second chart of "successful" editors was added after the long discussion on the talk page there. Apparently, a "successful editor" is one who has successfully made at least one edit, so you are included. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Blimey. Okay, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Outdated
This list is outdated, it seems that the new bot broke down. Catfurball (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Expand the list to the top 15K
So far, 10,000 edits are no longer in the top 10,000, so I'm proposing to expand the list to the top 15,000. I just created List of Wikipedians by number of edits/10001–15000, If you can, this page will be operational. Q𝟤𝟪 09:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Q𝟤 I don't know if your "creation" is in anyway related, but the pre-existing lists did not update correctly this morning. - Arjayay (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arjayay In fact, it only needs to change the settings of the robot to expand it to 15000. Q𝟤𝟪 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Q𝟤 Let us be clear, have you actually altered anything? including "the settings of the robot", or anything else? - Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're here. I saw a robot about updating this information before, but I just can't find the content that allows the robot to create the first 15,000. As long as you can change the robot's settings to the first 15,000, you can complete the request Q𝟤𝟪 18:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Q𝟤 you are still not answering the question "have you actually altered anything? including "the settings of the robot", or anything else? " - Arjayay (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain the only way to change the settings of the bot is here, on github. Q28 doesn't appear to have done anything beyond simply creating the page List of Wikipedians by number of edits/10001–15000, which shouldn't confuse the bot.
 * What do you mean the lists didn't update correctly this morning? Is this not correct? Aidan9382 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No Aidan9382 it is not correct. Only about 20% have changed, and these are significantly lower figures than their actual edits (Our No1 editor, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, only doing 6 edits in a day?). I can cite the figures for mine - according to the update I did no edits in the 24 hours since the previous update, whereas, as shown in my contributions, I actually did 210 in that period. - Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suspect that the recent replag (see this VPT thread) is probably the cause of that. It should eventually catch up as the replag sorts itself. Aidan9382 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I see the replag is now 37 hours - Arjayay (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 51 hours and still increasing — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Replag is still climbing. Expectation is that the problem will not be fixed "until mid next week" — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than expand the list, I think it would be interesting to create another version, one that only lists editors who have edited in the last 90 days. "wp:List of currently active Wikipedians by number of edits". I'm pretty sure that would include editors with far less than 10,000 edits.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:WereSpielChequers That has been proposed before (here), as have several other options. It seems that the problem is with processing time (server side), which is why identifying active editors (edited in the last 30 days) was dropped for over 3 years, although that was eventually reinstated. Personally. I'm not sure that extending the list to 15,000 is very helpful, and it certainly needs an evaluation of the impact on server resources, before it is implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know an active only list has been discussed before, the issue is when will increasing IT resources make this viable. One of the things about Moore's law is that excessive IT overloads eventually turn into insignificant ones.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 10,000 is a nice round number. 15,000 doesn't have a very good feel to it. I'm not gonna pretend that I am not aware of where I am on the list, but it also shouldn't be the reason we edit. Now, where's my update?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How about 2^14? —Tamfang (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any pressing need to expand the list to 15,000. A list of active Wikipedians would be more useful is a way to create it could be figured out. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've MfDed this. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)