Conservapedia talk:Active users

This is awesome.-αmεσ (tailor) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

To all the naysayers

It seems Conservapedia outnumbers us in terms of every kind of editor (except dead). -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:06, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, I think our longevity is similar. Both wikis had >60 editors who made >=1 edit in October 2007. And mind you, CP had a headstart. Sterile^xx 11:19, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I think we might get a different picture when some of the bugs are worked out of the system here. Many of CP's so-called active editors have fewer than ten edits. I don't think that's true for any on RW. With one exception, even our semi-active editors all have more than 30. Likewise they have 7 very active editors with 25 or less; we have none. DickTurpis 11:34, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't it amazing how, looking at the recent "Active editors" graphs, this post seems very obsolete? The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 01:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the last 10 days limit?

Let's say an active, but not empowered editor is taking a break of a couple of weeks. I find it very unfair to leave him/her out. Is this a technical limitation? Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 14:14, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

The limit is purely one of knowing who the editors are. CP has so many account names that it is almost impossible to extract a list of who are (or were) proper contributors. The names that have been included are all the usual suspects and, as has been said, those who edited in the last 10 days. The limit is imposed by how far back the recent changes log goes. Give me names and I'll include them. In the meantime, the list will be expanded about every week as other editors contribute. Also I need to take into account blocked users; it is nice to see how significant editors like Iduan contributed even though they are no longer active members. Genghis ^Marauding 14:24, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the explanation, sounds good to me. Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 15:35, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

You can email me if you want anything special included and I'll mix it in with the next update, along with several others I think should be included. Genghis ^Marauding 16:22, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Some pretty faulty criteria here

The process for deciding who's active, semi-active, and comatose seems highly flawed. How can we possibly call a user with 1 edit total (Beam) "active," while rating Geo.plrd "semi-active"? People with one edit this month range from "comatose" to "active". Banhmmered Iduan is "hyperactive". This seems haphazard, and it seems to me some sort of minimal number of edits should be required to be included on this list at all, let alone rated above comatose. DickTurpis 09:14, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

The whole table is being worked on, please curb you enthusiasm for the time being. Genghis ^Marauding 10:08, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Sorry. Didn't mean to sound too complainy. I'm sure this was a ton of work, and it's quite an amazing accomplishment (the questionable ratings aside), which we all greatly appreciate. Now is the math being done by hand? I noticed what appear to be a few flaws. Uranium241, for example, has one edit total, but his average is 1.7. I don't think that's mathematically possible. Likewise Deborah has 16 total, and a 42.6 recent average, making her the most active conervapedian. How are averages and recent averages being calculated? DickTurpis 10:22, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Averages are calculated over the period of activity, ie. from first edit to most recent edit. Recent averages are over last 60 days (that's actually 60x24 hours from time of the run). However, for new editors the time of their first edit is taken, so if they have only made one edit and joined 12 hours ago they will have a daily average of 2. Doing these calculations by hand as RA started off with the RW editors is a lot of work so I have automated it with Excel. However, people keep asking for cool new features like sorting so both the wiki code and the excel code need to be optimised. Basically it should just require the click of a button in excel to start the web data queries and then format them so that they can be copied and pasted into a wiki page without any reformatting. The analysis criteria are a relatively minor part of the process. As mentioned above the CP editor's list needs to be expanded as the first attempt was only done for a 10-day recent changes log. Once I have more data the criteria for which editors should be included can be decided upon. I also need to incorporate analysis of the block log. Optimisation of the wikicode through templates is required to keep page sizes down. Genghis ^Marauding 12:40, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

You might want to remove me since I'm banned

Genghis, this table is brilliant, but I've been struck down by the banhammer. You might want to remove me, since I'm well, dead.--Angband 15:15, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

RFC

So many editors get banned at CP that it is impossible to include them all. Any suggestions for what criteria should be used. Currently I limit the number of days and the number of edits but at what point should minor editors be ignored. I think that some major editors like Iduan should be left in even though they have been blocked just to show what they have lost. Genghis^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Might it be possible for your system to check if a banned editor had been created within the previous week, or perhaps even month? In most cases, those could all be discounted, surely? The stats are most useful when they represent staying power and continuing work. DogP 17:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Currently (see project page) editors must have been editing for 20 days and have made 20 edits. Genghis^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:01, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks--Angband 11:26, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Curious

Haha, thanks for the acknowledgement that I did a few things on CP, I'm certainly humbled.--Iduan 00:15, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Update

Update required - Genghis? I think you can hack off about 90% of the table, no-one's left. DogP 01:50, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Yah, Genghis has been such a bastard slowcoach about updating these things. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:58, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Such a shame when real life interferes with wiki-ing </sarcasm>   ^Contribs_Talk 02:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Speaking as one who failed their classes because of this site, I am fully qualified to say that yes, real life can get in the way. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:07, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm contemplating about considering the possibility of doing something tonight if there's nothing on the telly unless the bottle of Shiraz that I'll probably open proves particularly toothsome. But don't hold me to that. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

A kind of up-date, not interactive...--LArron 17:52, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks to Human, a flaw in the pic was spotted - should be all right, now. --LArron 23:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Update Nov 2008

I'd like to update this page, too. For my convenience, I'd just display the Top 100 CPs - like I did for RW. Thoughts? --LArron 18:12, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

If you can find 100! No, I think it should be similar to the RW one. Good work by the way.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 18:17, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Yes. An up to date version would be great. weaseLOId~ 18:21, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

So, I completed the update process for this month. But of course, I'm open to suggestions, as how many editors should be included, should every sysop be included etc., pp. --LArron 06:14, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Something not quite right

If you arrange in descending order of "edits per day", user N pops up at the top with 1028, despite this being his prior to Jan 08 total since when he has made no edits (in fact none since March 07). Shome mishtake, shurely? Toast 12:02, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Apparently the "Prior" entry is being counted as a single day when averaging. If this is happening to all editors tallies it would be throwing off all averages, sometimes greatly. DickTurpis 12:05, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Heh! He did do all those edits on one day. On March 11 he catted 1028 articles! Who is this masked stranger? Toast 12:08, 10 January 2009 (EST)

It still seems erroneous to count that as hsi daily average when his edits since then are 0, bringing down his average significantly. DickTurpis 12:11, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Other stuff

Is there a way to mark the banhammered users here? I think there will be quite a few, and it would give a slightly different perspective on some of these "active" users. Also, a cool thing: we have more editors with a ranking of semi-active or greater than they do. 52 to 67, I believe. Way to go us. Of course, the ranking of only the top 100 may skew things. Is there a way to mix the methods of editors within the past x days with top 100 of all time? DickTurpis 12:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Feb 2009

No, the up-date isn't complete:

• the encoding issues (utf-8 et.al.) at CP after their upgrade rose havoc. Joaquín Martínez suffers from it
• I stroke the blocked editors, however HelpJazz has to be altered by hand. I don't no why - yet
• data-gathering of CP became more cumbersome. I'll refine this up-date, but I don't know when the next will come
• some names have to be conflated (mountaindew has another identity, I always forget, which). If I get the identities, I'll try to do so
• at the moment, the default order is by number of edits. Do you like it? Or should I switch back to alphabetically ordered entries?

I hope for some input, here! --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:49, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Moutaindew is DanH. - User $\pi$ 19:59, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Recommendation

Rather than sorting alphabetically, is it possible to sort by status so that the ubermenschen are at the top of the table and the unpersons at the bottom? Stile4aly 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Click on the little >< things @ the top of the columns (twice on Recent edits/day'll give you ubermenschen). _and marmite 21:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah June update

What has happened to Ed? I really haven't not noticed him about, but now think about I haven't noticed him being WIGOed much recently. Also what does TK actually edit to get that high? - π 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember when Ed used to run to his master after creating a bunch of minor stubs about pants and closets. Those were the days.....Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 12:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing says the place is dying like one of the most prolific article creators not creating articles. I always loved Andy's comment, "wow Ed that is a lot", "I enjoy learning from your edits" and other generic platitudes. 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

TK's contributions in May 2009

namespace	Main	Main:Talk	User	User:Talk	CP	CP:Talk	Image	Image:Talk	MediaWiki	MediaWiki:Talk	Template	Template:Talk	Help	Help:Talk	Category	Category:Talk	Others
#edits	192	96	41	115	6	0	41	2	3	0	137	0	1	0	2	0	0

(more here) TK has two annoying habits (there are more, but these two irk me in particular}

1. he de-reds user names by editing user pages
2. he welcomes new users shortly before banning them

Furthermore, he contributes to cp:Template:mainpageright and cp:Talk:Main Page. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise he made that many mainspace edits. You know someone has been to CP when they talk about castles, even though it is the most fragrantly flouted rule. - π 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I see TK reverting more than editing. Do reverts count as edits in the totals here? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we have one more thing

Can you make an extra column of their mainspace edit rates? - π 09:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Which rate do you want exactly?

TK's contributions in Jan 2010

namespace	Main	Main:Talk	User	User:Talk	CP	CP:Talk	Image	Image:Talk	MediaWiki	MediaWiki:Talk	Template	Template:Talk	Help	Help:Talk	Category	Category:Talk	Others
#edits	129	92	24	102	12	1	21	3	3	0	159	0	1	0	2	0	0

129/546? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah a column with each editors mainspace edit rate. So for TK .236 - that way we can see how is over/under the 90/10 rule. Also I would be interested if seeing if any one at RW is over .1 - π 10:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

TK could argue, that his contributions to the news - which go to Template:MainSpaceRight - are not talk, talk, talk, though they don't reach encyclopedic standards. And what's about uploading pictures? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just interested in seeing everyone edit rates as a comparison. I wouldn't mind seeing it if it is not too much trouble, but if it is too much messing about is required don't let it worry you. - π 10:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not too much trouble - and I suppose it is traditional to calculate this ratio at CP in the least user-friendly way. Here's a preview:

user	# overall edits	# overall main	overall quota	# Jan 2010 edits	# Jan 2010 main	Jan 2010 quota
Aschlafly	36386	26474	72.8 %	696	363	52.2 %
Ed Poor	22117	14769	66.8 %	653	420	64.3 %
Conservative	20953	15112	72.1 %	286	98	34.3 %
RJJensen	18078	15008	83 %	1057	748	70.8 %
RobSmith	16181	11156	68.9 %	62	30	48.4 %
TK	15200	5229	34.4 %	546	129	23.6 %
Learn together	13241	10360	78.2 %	0	0	-
Karajou	12556	5795	46.2 %	690	368	53.3 %
Philip J. Rayment	11448	4624	40.4 %	0	0	-
DeanS	9330	5500	58.9 %	0	0	-

user	# overall edits	# overall main	overall quota	# Jan 2010 edits	# Jan 2010 main	Jan 2010 quota
Human	50878	14699	28.9 %	972	312	32.1 %
Π	18155	2349	12.9 %	751	81	10.8 %
NxBot	14189	24	0.2 %	3	0	0 %
Radioactive afikomen	13012	2635	20.3 %	162	25	15.4 %
Bob M	11186	4022	36 %	126	26	20.6 %
SusanG	10781	1496	13.9 %	1	0	0 %
Genghis Khant	9027	886	9.8 %	86	2	2.3 %
Kels	8512	278	3.3 %	244	0	0 %
Armondikov	8371	3373	40.3 %	508	169	33.3 %
TheoryOfPractice	8338	2024	24.3 %	364	76	20.9 %

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That is actually interesting. Would have sworn that Andy would spend more time arguing rather than editing. As for Philip he seems to be the big talkpage defender, although he has proven that around at aSK. - π 11:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Always keep in mind that some hot spots like Talk:Main Page or User talk:Aschlafly were deleted regularly, which should make quite a dent when you consider that Andy's been around for more than three years by now. (Edit to add: Though I dunno if the numbers are obtained just by looking at the contribs list in the present. So I guess it's possible that the numbers aren't influenced by those deletions.) Still, he does cram in tons of edits for his various essays, Bible translations, mysteries, lectures, reverts of facts and other "improvements". And often enough, TK and the parodists do most of the talking for him so Andy just chimes in with his "Exactly!" posts every now and then. --Sid (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Feb 2010

For me, RJJensen is the most interesting contributor of Feb 2010: In the category last month's edits, he dropped from the first place - which he held over the last couple of month, to no. 33 .... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Think he was pissed about his Jewish stuff being crozzled. I think the picture when you go max → min on "Average edits/day" & notice the blacks in the RH col.   ^Contribs_Talk 17:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

• There are only few active contributors
• of the top 150 editors, only 36 are still contributing
• 65 of the top 150 editors are blocked
• biggest loser of April 2010: Jessica T - over 600 comments were deleted, as the sysops at CP were to lazy to check whether entries like cp:Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea were valid or not

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If they keep going like this they will end up like us where everyone that edits there is a sysop. - π 13:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of JessicaT, does anyone know what happened recently that has cause the mass deletion of her articles with edit comments branding her a "serial thief" and a liar? Junggai (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

• Now, there are 116 editors "dead" under the TOP 150 - the most prominent new dead is RJJensen....
• there is no bot activity at CP over the last year - how do they manage?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

top 25 editors in May 2010

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

User Prior Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug 09 Sep 09 Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09 Jan 10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 May 10 Total Average edits /day Recent edits /day Verdict Conservative 17271 1270 307 1014 231 117 106 250 251 373 648 615 1622 24075 20.1 31.4 Übermensch TK 12190 672 643 413 7 35 224 285 533 698 572 601 844 17717 15.1 21.9 Hyperactive Aschlafly 29898 554 543 847 693 1086 943 1066 692 584 594 846 628 38974 30.3 22.5 Hyperactive RobSmith 13085 159 803 1479 341 104 90 12 62 424 668 88 487 17802 15.1 13.5 Hyperactive Jpatt 5125 525 471 382 342 618 332 248 270 309 420 280 278 9600 8.2 10.6 Hyperactive Joaquín Martínez 2378 416 175 171 476 387 351 674 600 635 691 152 245 7351 15.4 11.8 Hyperactive Iduan 5176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 144 5321 4.7 1.6 Active Karajou 9595 140 208 571 135 279 518 382 688 149 152 215 122 13154 11.2 5.3 Very active FOIA 862 542 284 86 1117 454 125 304 157 38 5 104 120 4198 5.4 2.5 Active DanielPulido 0 0 0 161 84 34 14 297 91 174 204 274 119 1452 4.9 6.5 Very active JimFullerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 112 169 5.1 1.8 Active RaymondP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 102 7.3 1.1 Active Jinxmchue 1088 5 45 18 38 113 73 60 1 7 4 22 99 1573 1.5 1.4 Active Chippeterson 1813 21 167 342 328 168 155 457 351 101 93 68 94 4158 3.9 2.8 Active DouglasA 0 0 46 75 90 101 145 618 95 87 159 187 91 1694 5.3 4.8 Very active JacobB 0 0 81 85 20 406 234 1043 451 392 183 59 90 3044 9.2 3.6 Very active Dozenness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 65 7.2 0.7 Semi-active BenjaminS 1253 0 0 0 0 0 14 65 0 4 15 7 64 1422 1.1 0.9 Semi-active Willminator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 64 6.4 0.7 Semi-active BertSchlossberg 1390 19 20 0 0 107 128 140 39 8 281 123 63 2318 2.6 5.1 Very active JonG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 60 86 2.3 0.9 Semi-active Hsmom 1442 1 56 10 6 5 3 0 4 0 0 0 59 1586 1.4 0.6 Semi-active GeneM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 54 27 0.6 Semi-active Ctown200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 49 50 2.6 0.5 Semi-active WillS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 47 11.8 0.5 Semi-active Total 511163 9790 7138 8970 7229 9868 8781 13768 10403 6570 7340 6443 7896 615359

just a test, providing an alternative... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Count

How are we tracking edits? There's no edit count site that I know of for Conservapedia...--Danielfolsom (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of us (well, at least two) have the habit to look up Conservapedia's database at least once a month - using various methods. In my case, this results in these counts - and in a couple of pics.

I can't guarantee perfect accuracy of the numbers: sometimes, there are glitches ("errors were made"). But generally, I'm quite certain that the information is correct within reasonable bounds...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Next Month

Above, I showed how a shortened list of the more active user would look like. I'd like to complement it with a list of the notably absent:

Rank	User	#edits	days since last edit	length of stay	days of activity	av. number of comments over lenght of stay	av. number of comments over days of activity
1	Learn together	13187	507	615	451	21.4	29.2
2	Philip J. Rayment	11342	437	736	624	15.4	18.2
3	DeanS	9289	265	918	755	10.1	12.3
4	Deborah	8047	414	387	133	20.8	60.5
5	WesleyS	7623	429	143	130	53.3	58.6
6	DanH	6728	712	432	411	15.6	16.4
7	Jallen	6564	326	853	352	7.7	18.6
8	AddisonDM	5955	143	453	251	13.1	23.7
9	Fox	5919	552	557	182	10.6	32.5
10	Jaques	5694	1026	139	107	41	53.2
11	Tash	5602	653	527	233	10.6	24
12	BrianCo	5508	487	624	228	8.8	24.2
13	SharonS	5422	217	1071	319	5.1	17
14	HelpJazz	4629	536	515	271	9	17.1
15	Foxtrot	4453	418	455	198	9.8	22.5
16	Aziraphale	4367	507	672	125	6.5	34.9
17	Dpbsmith	4335	250	1012	197	4.3	22
18	HenryS	4197	545	615	315	6.8	13.3
19	NathanG	4101	594	278	172	14.8	23.8
20	JY23	3956	282	362	255	10.9	15.5
21	EdBot	3445	534	274	24	12.6	143.5
22	Hojimachong	3147	943	240	130	13.1	24.2
23	JessicaT	2991	347	413	226	7.2	13.2
24	CSGuy	2686	131	788	184	3.4	14.6
25	Bugler	2443	517	247	191	9.9	12.8
26	DeborahB.	2427	171	1111	131	2.2	18.5
27	Jeremiah4-22	2396	1114	65	53	36.9	45.2
28	GregLarson	2313	870	215	55	10.8	42.1
29	BethanyS	2222	342	930	259	2.4	8.6
30	AlanE	1916	409	714	235	2.7	8.2

So, what do you think about a shortened list of active users, accompanied by the list above? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No Bethany on that list? She's been gone a while, and I thought had a pretty high edit count. DickTurpis (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I added some data. BethanyS wasn't in the list of the TOP 25, as she has rank 29. BTW: to qualify for this list you have to been AWOL/banned for at least three months larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very cool. The only issue I see is that some notable users fall through the cracks. RJJensen, for example, has been absent almost three months, with literally a few edits in that timeframe, so in spite of the fact he's been one of their most prolific editors who is nearly departed, this handful of edits keeps him off both lists. Likewise any of the above who were to suddenly make a single edit and disappear forever would be removed from the list for 3 months. Not sure if there's a simple solution (or if this really even is a problem), but it is one set of editors covered by the initial lists and missed by the new one. These graphs are amazing, by the way. DickTurpis (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he poses a little conundrum. But we can tweak the exclusion/inclusion parameters, <schlafly-mode>I'm open minded about this </schlafly-mode> larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

But if there are a few edits, then they're not totally absent, they just have a really low editing rate. This sort of criteria shows the ones who really didn't come back (or were banned). That said, another category of people with something stupidly low like 5 edits in 3 months might be an interesting addition. ^bomination 12:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

In July 2010, cp:Template:Mainpageright was deleted - and couldn't be restored. The edits to this template don't show in the list of the contributions of the users, so Aschlafly lost over 2,000 entries compared to last month. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

New low?

As of now I count 22 non-blocked CP editors who are rated "active" or higher (not a high bar to clear), and this number includes at least 4 parodists (not counting TK). Is this the lowest ever? DickTurpis (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Participation is very low: while the discussion of cp:Counterexamples to Relativity created some buzz, the excitement didn't last long - cp:Special:Statistics counts only 40 active editors! That's indeed a new low - worse than the numbers of August/September 2009!

Active editors at CP (last 90 days)

Active editors at CP

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

October

I've noticed that several people are there without editing for a month or more. CP is DEAD. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 15:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nov 2010

Wow, those numbers are pretty telling. 19 editors making 1 edit a day or more. Of those, 1 is already blocked, 4 have joined in the last 4 months (and one of those is a likely parodist). Of the remaining 15, 10 are sysops, 1 is monomanciac FOIA, and the rest all have sysop-lite powers. The site is growing rapidly. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Feb 2011

In Feb 2011, Joaquín has made more edits than Ken

- or hasn't he ? larronsicut fur in nocte 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(the high retention rate at RationalWiki indicates that it is one of the most conservative wikis...)

I lold--Brxbrx (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Where's Rob?

Rob seems to be absent from the most recent graph (June '11), even though it appears he had well over 200 edits last month. Is that an error? DickTurpis (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oct 2011

• I made the list: cp:User:RonLar
• RobSmith is on the list for the last time...
• vandalizing 100 articles in a short time secures a place on the list & Conservapedia the illusion of actual traffic :-) They should really reactivate guard-dog!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Update July 2013

Judging from the number of edits, July 2013 was very disappointing: out of 3,300 revisions, 2,700 are still in the database at the end of the month:

Therefore, July 2013 is the month with the fewest number of edits other than Nov 2006 (1,600 edits) - and in Nov 2006, there were only 10 days to edit Conservapdia, as its oldest edit is from Nov 21, 2006.

This took a while, because gathering the data was quite painful, but it worked in the end. --larron (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

CP is finally going the way of ASK. Soon it'll just be the Futile Four editing there. Sophie^Wilder 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the individual level of activity for just about every user went down in July. In the few cases where the opposite is true the rise in individual level of activity is either negligible (i.e JohnJustice going from dark grey to light grey) and/or said user is banned (i.e NKeaton). Even Conservative went from red to orange, although I'm not sure if this due to a reduced motivation/capacity to edit CP or if this is merely due to the fact that are fewer users to interact with him. - Bill Rawls (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The last couple of days have been very bleak for cp. Just wave after wave of spammers (strangely absent today, maybe Operation Shut Out The World has had some effect) with Karajou, Andy, and sometimes Conservative frantically blocking and deleting them. Other activities include Terry popping in to link-whore every once in a while, very occasional edits by other minor users, and Conservative's endless variations of his cut paste articles. I think and hope this is it; Conservapedia and Andy's server money exist only as a toilet bowl catching the droppings of a mental case typing away in some public computer lab in Buffalo. Shakedangle (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm really curious, what the fuck is Andy's problem? How deep in denial does he have to be in order to not realize at this point that his site is a failure? I honestly think that now that Markman is gone September will break July's record as the second quietest month on CP. - Bill Rawls (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he realizes it somewhat, but is unable to bring himself to acknowledge it publicly. Who knows what he thinks to himself, deep at night, upending yet another pint of his cousin's excellent beer. Shit I should probably get some work done.

Oh there are no spammers because Andy turned off user creation, probably sometime yesterday, then turned it on a short while today before cutting it again.Shakedangle (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait, user creation is turned off? Why? Has Andy realized that nobody is going to register to CP for any reason other than to troll or spam? - Bill Rawls (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

One can only hope. More probably it's a temporary measure while he works on a fix to the spammer problem. Knowing their competence level who knows when or if this will be. This is so stupid: they've always had spammers, but the problem became unmanageable since the other well meaning editors left or were banned. Shakedangle (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI.... --larron (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks LArron. What happened 4th quarter 2010? There's a huge drop off, but a quick look through the wigo talk cp during that time didn't make it clear to me why cp was so dead. Shakedangle (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of date

This page doesn't seem to be updated much: it currently seems to contain data from about a year ago. Should it be marked historical, or updated? Could a bot be made to update this automatically? —Bilorv (needs a slap) 18:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

2020

Can someone please teach me how to get the number of edits from users from 2020? All I know is to do this: https://conservapedia.com/Special:UserProfile/(username), but I don't know how to find all the users from 2020. Or, more specifically and reasonably, teach me how to find users with more edits. Thanks! --ConservaSpy (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)