RationalWiki talk:Active users/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 13 November 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

"calculate your own edits," er ..... why? Susan^purrrrr 05:10, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

So you can indulge my OCD. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:12, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Are you sure you're not channelling Hannelore Ellicott? ;-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:20, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Not consciously. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:22, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

If I indulge yours, will you indulge mine? Susan^purrrrr 05:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

What would that entail? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:24, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

That's for me to know! Susan^purrrrr 05:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Eh, sure. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Right, I'll get the handcuffs! Susan^purrrrr 05:31, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

O.O -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:42, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I believe that's "kinky", not "OCD", Susan. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I can do this in an Excel macro if anyone wants. Although it is a pain. Sterile^xx 08:41, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Sure! Actually, I started this in Excel, although I don't know what a "macro" is. : / -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I obviously don't do well at math. How do all of jtl's 0 edits add up to two? Are there some fractional edits which are not displayed?--Bob^{bing up} 13:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Fractional edits? :D Eh, sorry, I put in the wrong number for August. It's fixed now. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Couple of comments - 1., the table should be in some "order" - either decreasing edits, or alphabetical (better) - please? Also, why not dig out the May - August rates as well? Make it complete... As far as "active", I consider anyone who has edited recently and been around over, say, a month to be "active" - and some, like Glaucopis, are so busy I don't think they need a month. So when Helios popped up and edited again, that "updates" his status as "active" (IMO). Even though he is not "very active", of course. human 15:07, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

You're an addict. TmtamesP 15:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes he is. I can only aspire to making 2,000 edits a month. Human does it regularly. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:34, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, Seams that i have... Timppeli 15:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

...some catching up... Timppeli 15:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

...to do. Timppeli 15:43, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

We updating this anytime soon? My OCD is acting up just looking at this.Tyrannis (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

??? The last update was a couple of days ago... (the actual data is kept in the Template:Rwau) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Standards for ratings

I added a column to the table for "hard numbers" to go by. My choices of numbers were moderately arbitrary, but seem reasonable (to me, of course). They also are a nice logarithmic progression :) human 16:52, 13 March 2008 (EDT) <^___ geek!

I like what the standards you put added for the editor ratings. I know if I had done them, they would have been a lot, eh, messier than that. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:52, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Haha, we both added the same header! And, thanks... human 16:54, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, let's make a sharper definition here - how about the numbers (1/3/10/30 etc.) are the threshold for the given rating? Also, last time I checked, they weren't applied very accurately, especially based on the "recent" daily averages. Now that the rating cells are colored, maybe it would be easier to have sub-page templates called /1 /3 /10, etc. that do the text and background color automatically? Much easier to change. human 12:26, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the formats are single entries in my spreadsheet and the verdicts are made from criteria. Genghis ^Marauding 12:38, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Can you put the "criteria" in text next to the little table that crudely defines them? human 12:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Ancient history

I don't think it's necessary to get those old months. In fact, six months history is sufficient for the purposes of this article. I suggest moving months older than six to another table in a new section. human 16:57, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Who can't count?

RA - My contributions are correct for my time-zone. Also my edit history only has (now) 1458 edits. I deliberately didn't include my 4 edits last July as most other users hadn't given their early edits. I would suggest you check your own maths, particularly for December 2007. You can post your grovelling apology on my user talk page. Genghis ^Marauding 18:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Sort!

Not enough work is being done on this critical document. I now recommend a re-sort, sorting by activity level. And hurry up about it. DogP 21:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

So - what are the chances of posting an alternate table sorted by activity level? DogP 12:46, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Amazing the things you're doing here - now we can sort by apples consumed per day, and the like. Brilliant! DogP 12:11, 27 March 2008 (EDT)'

Even in Wikipedia they only have about a dozen sortable tables, so on a per article average basis we're streets ahead. Genghis ^Marauding 14:11, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

And note - I'm on Safari on OSX and the Sort buttons work just fine. Safari FTW! DogP 15:38, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

That's good then. The MediaWiki write-up says it only works on the first column. Genghis ^Marauding 16:18, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Nope- all columns sort fine. DogP 20:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

So what's the easiest way to count up your contribs?

Because one of you need to do mine :p I may not have contributed in two weeks (holy cow! has it really been that long?) but I at least have more contributions than Newton! Lurker 00:40, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

You manually count them. By month. And without using that "skip to this month" function either—that will skip over as many as fifty edits per month. Or, I can just do it for you... -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Boo that! You guys need one of those counters like CP has... wait a minute. Are you telling me that all of those stats on the page were counted BY HAND?! Holy WOW! Lurker 00:52, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. I'm flattered. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I did a view Special:Contributions&limit=5000&target=AUser then select and copy into a spread sheet (or text editor with row numbers) You just need to subtract the row numbers for the start of each month. You also get the total number of contris in one go. That's how I know it's RA who can't count, not me. :) Genghis ^Marauding 03:21, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Darn it, Genghis! Stop bludgeoning me with your mind! : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:58, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course a real Excel wiz could even even do a count for each month; not really worth it for a one off though. You could even do a web-data query for a given user name and count the different namespaces etc. etc. just like the Interiot tool. The only difference being that it would be in a spreadsheet rather than being presented as a web page. In fact I may start handing out scripting assignments. Ed Poor, you're my inspiration! Genghis ^Marauding 05:30, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Aaaaaaargh! *Brain explodes* -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:34, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Ew. Now we've got brain all over the Wiki. :-/ --AKjeldsen^Godspeed!

Time to uncork a nice bottle of Chianti. Genghis ^Marauding 05:55, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

No drinking at work, I'm afraid. Come to think of it, no hanging out on websites either. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:00, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Are you celebrating my death, Genghis? Fool! I cannot die the Final Death! I am as the phoenix, dying only to be reborn again! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:07, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Silence, lamb! Genghis ^Marauding 17:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

<-- When it comes down to it, the entire table should be automated, if someone was dedicated enough to learn how. List all editors active in the last 30 days, and list their edits by namespace for the last 30/60/90 days, then categorize them. All in a 'puter program thing. human 17:45, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Hu, I'm probably about half way there (in capability). I sent RA an XL spreadsheet which reads in a user's edit history and counts the monthly contributions. However, I have encountered some problems with overactive editors like yourself. On CP & WP I can get a list of 5000 recent edits and then apply a numeric offset to read the next 5000 - thats how the Interiot edit counter tool works. For some reason on RW I can only get a maximum of 4407 edits in a list for you before I get epic fail, while with Susan's edit history it was 4574. Also RW's Special:ContributionsUser seems to display differently with offsets being date dependent so specifying a second page is more complicated. Currently I have a dropdown list to select the user but this could be automated to go through everyone after I get the too many edits problem sorted. I am working on namespace edit counts as I type (well not literally as I have obviously taken some time out). Genghis ^Marauding 18:07, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

You said me that the macro would "epic fail" if the edit count was over 5000. Amusingly, when I used it tally SusanG's edits, they came out to exactly 5000. I double checked by counting them up manually. So, freaky. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The most that can be displayed in a specialpages list is 5000. This is some sort of MediaWiki limit. As each web query takes time I need to get as many as possible in the list at one go so it just took the max of 5000. Human's edits returned nothing until I reduced the number. Now I make repeat queries if there are exactly the requested number in the list. Before I noticed your changes of early "0"s to "--" I had already implemented it in my Excel formatting and included a background color for each verdict. I have improved the formatting so that it is now possible to just select and copy the required cells in Excel and paste it straight into the wikiedit box. I will include the User type count table in the next version. Genghis ^Marauding 08:47, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

A whole crapload

That's a lot of users we have. 84 listed, if I count correctly. Even if we assume 20% of those listed are inactive, we still have... what, 60-plus? By the way, yes, I did go through the user creation log and added every vaguely familiar name. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:14, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I think about half of that list are inactive. human 18:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Can we move the "dead" and perhaps also the "comatose" editors to a second table of their own? Oh, and shouldn't we have a criterion for continued inclusion of said users on this article at all? human 12:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

At the end of March we can split off the Terri Schiavos (sorry, is that in poor taste?). As for what criteria we should use for inclusion - any suggestions? Genghis ^Marauding 17:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Active in the last 60 days? Since 0 edits in 60 days = death, which certainly is not "active". human 17:37, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I third the motion to split off defunct editors. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:21, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Totals row at bottom?

Can we have a row along the bottom of the main table listing the totals of all the columns? human 16:26, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, of course. But as there are some editors who only make a few edits is there a point? Genghis ^Marauding 16:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course there's a point. I want to see what percentage my edits are of the entire list without doing any work. :) human 17:38, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

OK I'll update it (soon). Genghis ^Marauding 19:30, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Haha, thanks... by the way, I think you accidentally deleted a comment by Lily? human 19:53, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Cool. Over one sixth, at least. I should add that to my sig ;) human 22:05, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Idea to make twice as much work

We should do one of these for CP, too. And remove any editor that gets a long-term block. Out of curiosity. I know we have more sysops than they do, but that's because I/we "hand them out like candy". And they get more hits, etc., - but I suspect we might actually have more genuine active editors. human 14:48, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Human, it should be very little work. All I need is a list of usernames to replace the RW list, then I substitute the query path for CP. Although we already have the CP Editors report card 2007. Genghis ^Marauding 05:59, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, do it then! For a name list, I'd say just look at recent changes a few times over a week or two? Since their "user list" is even more useless than ours. human 22:23, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Quite the little Hitler Ed Poor today, aren't you? Genghis ^Marauding 05:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, you want me to come up with the list of CP editors for you to run? I'd think, actually, one of our heavier WIGO contributors could do a better job faster (those who stalk recent changes over there are already doing 90% of the effort). Shall we ask Sid to help? human 13:30, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Human, your request has been completed. Just need to sort out the blocked users now. (But not today) Genghis ^Marauding 21:24, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

AWE-SUM! Thanks :) human 21:39, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah, here it is. Should we interlink these two articles? Oh, and can I make that one sortable by copying a simple line form this one, or is it trickier than that? human 21:46, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I'll redo the CP users once I get the formatting sorted out here. There is a bit more than just making the table sortable as the heading and numbering needs to be updated as well. You can only sort with a single header row. :( Genghis ^Marauding 09:22, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Dead sysops

Flippin, Jtl, Offeep, Staple, Teratornis, and Totnesmartin... We have 6 dead sysops (I just love the way that sounds : ) ). -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, we should do something about that. human 16:50, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad I didn't quite show up as dead...though I'm sure I was on the way. Researcher 14:47, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Dead editors

It's about time we moved them to their own table in a new section, isn't it? By the way, this thing is getting really cool. Oh, and after the dead have been brung out, can the editor list be numbered automagically in your spreadsheet? human 16:50, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, excellent! Now it's easy to sort and see that we have about 50 "active" editors, and up to perhaps 70 "might be" participants (not counting new editors who may not have been added yet?). human 14:18, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Small bug

There's a small bug in the offset time of my spreadsheet (I included seconds when they aren't logged) which might give a slight difference for users with low edit counts. I'll run it again overnight and update it in the morning. Genghis ^Marauding 20:13, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

RA also note that my counts are done with server time as I am not logged in when I run the web queries. If you are counting edits while logged in then some edits will fall on different days. Also the recent edit average is calculated on 60 days from the time the query is run, to the nearest minute. Genghis ^Marauding 20:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Agh. Sorry. That didn't occur to me. My bad. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:49, 26 March 2008 (EDT)#

May

if you click on May the sorting is wrong --Warty 06:46, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

You're right, it doesn't. We'll probably have to ask Genghis Khant to fix it. In all likelihood it's his fault, anyways. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Is it something to do with the date in may when the person joined?--Warty 06:59, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

The sorting is correct if it is sorted as text - you wanted it sorted as values? ;) Genghis ^Marauding 07:18, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Please yes. Are they all the same? (figured out the colons!)--Warty 07:36, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

There is some sort of bug in the RW implementation of MediaWiki, the "-" are only recognised as text and the switch to force numeric sorting doesn't work. So I have put in blanks for the months before an editor joined RW. I'll include Warty during my next run. ;) Genghis ^Marauding 09:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I wouldnt bother with me mr khant - I've no idea whatpassword I used and I probably wont be back - just googling around when i found the way here. Good site though! and I like these wiki things. --Warty 10:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, well spotted on the sorting issue if you were just passing through. Genghis ^Marauding 10:16, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

the page was at the top of the recent changes wheni first looked at it so i clicked on anything iI could! --Warty 10:24, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

stevo

just looking at this it doesn't seem right, stevo should be a lot lower average. --Warty 08:25, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I've changed the definition. It is actually for the period of active editing. If Stevo came back tomorrow his average would drop, but while he was here he was quite active. Genghis ^Marauding 08:45, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Assume a=a's username is messed up again. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:50, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanx, fixed it again. I'm making changes to the layout without re-running the whole analysis again so you need to be a little patient. Warty, the left hand column header doesn't line up on your screenshots. What OS and browser are you using? Everything looks fine for me in Windows XP/2000 with both IE and Firefox. Genghis ^Marauding 09:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

firefox XP its the top row thats too short all the others are ok.--Warty 09:20, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Its ok in Internet explorer though --Warty 09:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

There's no sorting button in that column probably what's causing it.--Warty 09:23, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Scripting this?

Is there any way to place a script on this so that the edit numbers are autocalculated?--TimS 17:06, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Genghis Khant's macro does it for us. I don't really see why we should make the wiki do everything. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

The only minor trouble with that is that it depends on GK running updates and pasting them in. Look at the trouble we have over at WIGO when we need to reset the voting numbers, and Trent is the only one who can do it. It would be super super cool if the table was automated. human 17:38, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

He can always email the macro to me, the never-absent when needed person. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17

41, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, that's interesting. A semi colon bolds the line of text.

I wonder if it goes past a dot. Like this? Yup.

But a colon

ends it? yes, and starts a new line. Interesting feature!

(It's a Definition list See Help) SusanG 06:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yeah the issue at hand. That depends on a user who is about to become/has become too busy to help being able to send the macro along. Perhaps we should try to save a copy in a sub article so it's always available for people to tinker with or misuse for other purposes? human 19:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Formating tangent

The ';' and ':' are shorthand for dictionary list 'dl'. The ';' begins a 'dt' tag (dictionary text) while the ':' begins a 'dd' tag (dictionary definition). Combined, this gives you:

 ;Foo
 :The first metasyntatic variable.
 ;Bar
 :The second metasyntatic variable.

Which gets translated to the html:

 <dl>
 <dt>Foo</dt>
 <dd>The first metasyntatic variable.</dd>
 <dt>Bar</dt>
 <dd>The second metasyntatic variable.</dd>
 </dl>

And rendered as

Foo

The first metasyntatic variable.

Bar

The second metasyntatic variable.

This should make the behavior of the colon and semicolon a bit better understood. --Shagie 19:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Recent edit calculations

Does this work properly? I can't figure out how TK's recent edit count is worked out.--Bob^{bing up} 19:28, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Some of this can't be right. I cite two examples:

25: Marghanita Laski 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 54 4.5 3.7 Very active

33:Lily The Pink 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 82 2.8 2.8 Active

Numbers are when sorted by recent average, most at top. human 20:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Presume (guess) it's actual days editing i.e.

ML: 54/4.5 = 12 days

LTP:82/2.8 = 29 days

? SusanG?

Suggestion

Can you include somewhere "Last updated on" date. SusanG 07:16, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Very good idea. And can we haz a full update through March now that it's over pleez? human 13:45, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, let's have that "Last Updated On" date please GK! And a new update would be fun. DogP 14:48, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I thought the last update was just before our bad boy RA got grounded? human 15:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Isn't GK the genius behind all this Excel wizardry? DogP 15:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I confused the OCD editor who got it started with the one who computerized it! And it was around the end of March that RA got up under broadbandless arrest, right? human 16:13, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Response (belated)

Sorry for not getting back on this, guys & gals. I had left it alone after updating the stats for March. There were a lot of updates as the spreadsheet macros were updated but now it is probably better if it is only done monthly as partial months are a bit odd (and maybe a bit obsessive). Before I release a spreadsheet into the wild I need to know how much information should be included in the table. Obviously we can't just keep extending the months ad inifinitum. Do we want to have just the last 12 months or so and a summary for all the preceding months? Views please.

About the calculations. Average edits are calculated over the period from the first edit to the last edit so that if someone has stopped editing the value shows how active they were over that period rather than an ever diminishing average. Recent edits are calculated over the last 60 days or for new users from the first edit up until the end of the month (server time). Now if a new editor has not edited for a couple of days then the period of recent edits will be greater than the period of overall activity so give a greater average. Again if anyone wants to propose a better schema let me know. and it can easily be changed. I can give RA the Excel sheet for April but would like to have it set up to automatically change each month's range of stats. I certainly don't want to sit on it but getting all the stats together has proved to be quite a task, especially as the same spreadsheet works for CP editors.

Considerations for anyone wishing to script this. Before getting the stats the list of editors needs to be updated. I have automated this in Excel to download the recent changes list and extract all the editors names, new ones are then added the previous list. Although it's not an issue at RW for CP the blocklist also needs to be updated. Offhand I think I exclude those who have made less than 20 edits, mostly vandals. In lieu of maintaining a large database (this would be better done on the server side) the stats for each editor have to be downloaded every time. For most normal editors this can be done with one web request. For those with OCD (yes, you Human) several requests have to be made. CP and WP allow 5000 entries at a time, unfortunately RW chokes on much over 4000 (Linus is this something you can change?) I have emulated Interiot's tool as far as I can so individual editors can have a full analysis of their edits but getting results for all editors and presenting them in a wikiformatted page might be a considerable task. Currently it takes about 20 minutes to run the RW stats and about 45 minutes for CP.

Genghis^evolving 15:48, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Phenomenal work, GK. Yes, monthly updates are all that's needed, and yes, last 12 months only, too. DogP 15:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Awesome! It would be cool if the "dead" could be ignored at some point - no edits for 2 months drops one off the list? You said "I have emulated Interiot's tool as far as I can" - does this mean the individual editor data thing he installed on CP might be on RW somewhere? human 16:11, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I can cut off the dead at any point. It's just a question of when, and do we want to despatch some early big editors?

From what I know of Interiot's tool it has to be set up specifically for the wiki in question. Checking the user history shows that Interiot was actually an early CP editor. Currently I don't do a namespace top 10 analysis like Interiot, but my individual bar chart shows an editor's activity in each namespace. With April's stats we will have 12 months up and I can crystallise the table layout. Do we want some sort of prior summary, or just the last 12 months and include everything in the overall edit count and average? (The latter would probably be easiest.) Genghis^evolving 16:34, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

WRT the dead, can you make it "count" them but then drop them from the published results? The thing is, after all, called "active users"... human 17:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you elaborate how you'd like that presented? Genghis^evolving 18:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure, don't show them in the magic table on the wiki. But keep the user name in your querying device, so if they return, the program will Jesus them and they'll pop back to life. IOW, simply drop the "black" table cell of death from the article - there could be a note appended to explain this, or even a separate table of the dead only in a new section? Oh, and as far as the over one year stuff - could that also be a summary table of older months in its own section? Them's all I asks for :) human 20:16, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Awesomeness, Genghis! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:44, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

As for the details, yah, I support dropping dead editors, but making a separate table for them, as well as going only 12 months back, with older months lumped together in one column. Regarding any other details, it all sounds technical (i.e. out of my league), so I'll just complain as things go along. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:44, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

table broken

I noticed a few problems just now - the total and average edits appear to be switched, and AmesG's data is messed up (probably because he changed names?) human 18:11, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Tomorrow Genghis^evolving 18:30, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I see you already fixed the column problem, thanks! Soemtimez I kan on ur wiki haz 20,000 editz! human 18:39, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Update?

Update plz? DogP 18:41, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I concur with Puppystubborn above—update! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I IZ NOT COMATOSE!!! Totnesmartin 08:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Sloths only appear comotose - we're just very good at conserving energy (and sleeping). Silver Sloth 08:53, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

OK you miserable whingers, the table has been updated to the end of August. Thanks to LArron for providing the data. Генгис^evolving 18:54, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh thank you thank you thank you, Genghis! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:37, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Error/Typo?

There appears to be something wrong. class="sortbottom" is appearing at the top of the table. I've no idea what to do with it so can someone sort it/ Cayce_Pattern 18:12, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

It was fixed and now it's come back> I'll see what was done last time.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 17:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Not fast enough, LArron's fixed it.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 17:40, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Update Oct 2008

Hi, I tried to update the data to include Sep 2008. Genghis fixed the bugs I produced during the process: Thanks! In a couple of days I'll include Oct 2008 - and will alter the data for Conservapedia:Active users, too. --LArron 08:42, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You are a statistics machine!! ArmondikoV^gnostic 08:52, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Please don't do it. My October statistics are too embarassing. Hmm, could you just copy/paste my September posts into October? Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 08:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, it's all done automatically :-) But you can always change the numbers yourself... --LArron 10:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Update Nov 2008

It's interesting that it was the two ubermenschs that had a spat. Maybe they both need to step back and let other users have more of a say rather than mould the wiki into their own image which I'm sure has always been done with the best of intentions. I think that's where the mobocracy really breaks down; a few people getting a bit too precious about the whole thing. I'm not judging any particular individual(s) but people need to mellow a bit, be a bit more like Bob for example.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 18:15, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Could the number of characters in the name column be limited; R.A. puts all the numbering out. _and marmite 23:06, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Done it. _and marmite 23:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Why am I not there? I don't think I'm dead. At least I hope not. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 20:29, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I think you joined after it was last updated? ħuman 20:42, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I'm STILL not there. And I should qualify to be hyperactive! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{overworked and overbearing} 20:12, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Well we have not done an update in the last week, also you wouldn't come close to hyperactive. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:20, 3 January 2009 (EST)

On average, I am hyperactive. Even if most of it's on talk pages. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{overworked and overbearing} 20:30, 3 January 2009 (EST)

You have had 226 edits in 25 days that is 9.04 a day you are very active. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:33, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I am still not there. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is an evil librul} 20:17, 15 January 2009 (EST)

The table shows the editors (not bots) made the most contributions over the whole time, not only over the last couple of months. Your position was somewhere around no. 140 when I made the table, and to reach a position in this table, you would have had to contribute more than 440 edits... LArron 14:57, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Can we shave off all of the dead users and put them in their own table, then expand the "live" editors to include the top 150? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:04, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I prefer to include the dead in the general table - as it can be sorted by any column, there seems to be no disadvantage in doing so. And it's a nice memento to those who took once quite an interest in RW.

It's no problem to take another number, 100 were the number the table started with.

I want to keep the outfit similar to the one of Conservapedia:Active users.

LArron 15:32, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you for responding so quickly, LArron. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:52, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I asked if we could expand the table to 150 because an increasing percentage of the community are casual users, who don't make nearly enough edits to break into the top 100. Even if they only make 5 or so edits per month, it would still be nice to be able to see, at a glance, whether they're alive or dead. As it is, we can only gauge the growth of the hardcore users, which isn't a very accurate measurement for the community of a site. But if we expand the table so we can include the more casual users, we can more accurately gauge the growth of RationalWiki. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:52, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Although, if we're going to leave in the dead users, then I think we should expand the table to include the top 200. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:52, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe then I'll make the list. But then, i think I'd have to actually start contributing substantively. EternalCritic 16:12, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Have a look here...

LArron 16:15, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I appreciate the image, LArron. I'll guess I can be satisfied with that... until the next monthly update. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:59, 16 January 2009 (EST)

TOP 150

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

According to the prior discussion, I enlarged the table to include the 150 editors which commented most at RW. I'll try to do so for CP, if/when they come alive, again.

Engoy (and say so :-) --l'arron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:36, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I would have enjoyed it, but not making the charts has dampened my enthusiasm somewhat. Must try harder (or turn off the preview button perhaps). Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 08:23, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Yup! If you were more of a Ken, you'd have more of a chance of climbing up the chart.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 08:27, 2 February 2009 (EST)

That's true, my misspelled corrections keep me in the charts. Dear Insert_Name_Here, getting it right the first times put you only on #163 (though you are #30 of January's editors)... l'arron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:34, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I've got to be more like Ken? yuk. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 08:40, 2 February 2009 (EST)

This pic ( -> ) should include everyone who takes an interest in such things ;-) l'arron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:34, 2 February 2009 (EST)

User bot accounts

Several users here run bot accounts on the side. Because their sole purpose is for making repetitive edits, as opposed to being a conventional sock, can we just count their edits as belonging to their respective owner's main account? (I speak, of course, of NxBot, Pibot, RAbot, and Weaseldroid.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:16, 2 March 2009 (EST)

This should be possible, if you give me a list of accounts which should be conflated. Only the four above? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 03:29, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Yes—just those four, plus Genbot (Genghis Khant's bot account). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:39, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Feb?

?   .  ^{So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos} 08:57, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Interested? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:36, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Just that it seems to have come to a dead stop. It'd be a shame to lose it.   .  ^{So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos} 17:46, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Dead stop? That sounds a little bit harsh ;-)

FWIW, I up-dated the tables. But I haven't added the numbers of the bot accounts to their respective human counterparts (yet), as discussed above. Sorry. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:52, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

There's also an issue of an editor with >10k edits who less-than-secretly came back under a new name, and still edits heavily. Thoughts? ħuman 21:50, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

I have no idea who you are talking about Human. My only thought is I should develop some more hobbies, or do all that work that is piling up. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 21:57, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Not you, you and your irrationality! I meant "someone else" (you know who I mean). Or do you fall under that category too? ħuman 00:11, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I do, I 'crated her when I worked it out. No just me the only account I have. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 00:12, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Pie!!!!! Free Pie for all!!!! ħuman 00:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I found this person the other day User:pi, so am not the first. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 00:19, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Voldemort? You lost me completely. Could you all be less cryptic? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 02:57, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps a trip to RWW will help... Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 10:28, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi! Pie 10:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

We're being cryptic because we're not sure if she wants the equation between her two accounts to be completely open on RW. RWW, however, has no compunction about reporting it, since they have evidence, as I recall. ħuman 17:28, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Bots

For the sake of simplicity - and the peace in the world - I decided (all on my own :-) not to conflate any accounts... However, here is a table of the contributions of the bots. If you like it, it can be integrated on the project page. larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

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

Bot Prior May 09 Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug 09 Sep 09 Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09 Jan 10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 Total Average edits /day Recent edits /day Verdict ACDbot 1156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1156 3 0 Dead Aylesburymartin 83 53 1 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 0.2 0 Dead Bestofbot 538 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 538 2.6 0 Dead Capturebot 4690 596 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5288 21.4 0 Dead Capturebot2 14 52 415 312 272 291 272 394 424 523 266 236 283 3754 9.7 8.8 Very active Catbot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3508 0 0 70 0 220 3798 27.9 3.3 Very active Chancellor Palpatine 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Dead FedhajiBot 0 0 601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 601 66.8 0 Dead GenBot 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Dead IceBot 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Dead Indexbot 179 0 15 64 51 65 70 65 51 74 69 70 65 838 1.2 2.3 Active NxBot 413 60 20 29 6888 89 223 6315 149 3 41 149 986 15365 36.2 13.2 Hyperactive OCDBot 0 0 0 0 0 0 453 58 17 0 55 0 0 583 4.9 0.6 Semi-active Phantom Ninja 11 0 0 0 10 7 42 3 0 0 0 0 0 73 0.2 0 Dead Pibot 12 207 239 205 180 202 307 377 269 246 236 300 384 3164 6.4 10.3 Hyperactive PunchingBag 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 32 37 4 89 1 0.8 Semi-active RAbot 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 419 18.2 0 Dead Rdbot 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1.8 0 Dead Redirectbot 49 7 40 8 8 14 15 122 0 10 51 0 8 332 1 0.7 Semi-active Stubbot 2139 0 196 116 22 45 72 81 52 49 84 44 75 2975 3.1 2.3 Active WIGObot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 21 44 29 29 26 177 1 0.9 Semi-active Weaseldroid 61 2 0 0 0 0 0 34 22 0 0 0 0 119 0.4 0 Dead Wpbot 467 0 5 11 10 15 19 23 12 15 17 19 13 626 0.9 0.6 Semi-active

Hmph. Stupid CaptureBot. I live! Phantom Ninja 05:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Praises and Thanks, and Helpful Suggestions

The place would be here... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm not worthy? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:40, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Up-date May 5, 2009

I kept it simple:

• Bots are included (so, I won't up-date the table above)
• The line total includes all edits at RW, not only those of the top 150
• the pre-order is (quite arbitrarily) set to number of edits. But the table allows for your own ordering.

Enjoy! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Editors

It seems that I run into one of Pibot's blocking sprees. I'll correct this later... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. I hope those of the section below will find this entry, too. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And he STRUCK THEM DOWN...

How come have the active editors are suffering from a serious bout of strikethrough? SJ ^Debaser 10:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it indicated banhammeredness. Stupid harmonic Phantom Hoover! 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not that - some of the most active users like Martin and Trent have been strikethrough... ed. So've I as well and I don't think I'm currently blocked... SJ ^Debaser 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it might be blockedness at the time that Larron's bot came around. Stupid harmonic Phantom Hoover! 11:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the section above this one. Nx (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh-t. SJ ^Debaser 13:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oooohhh

I'm nearly at Übermensch. I'll either have to get a life or step up the pace. ^bomination 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just short. DAMMIT! ^bomination 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I beat CUR! That was my sole ambition at RW all last month. Next: the Dane. If I can be arsed. Although I liked him so the motivation is lacking. Totnesmartin 17:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Update Dec 2009

This will take a couple of dates, sorry... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Take your time. I like being at the top ^bomination 14:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone want me to do this? - π 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I love this chart! Here's a funny thing though, for some reason it looks like Gooniepunk and SuperJosh have a line through their names (at least that's how it appears to me anyway - but it could just be my older browser - ?) and of course I have no idea why this is or what can be done about it. I did look back at the history, and the first time I can see their names appear is here hmm. So curious. I'm sure someone can tell me why this is... anyone? Thanks! Refugee^{talk page} 11:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The lines means they were blocked at the time their names were checked. - π 11:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks, like I will give it a go. - π 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know what criteria is used to form this list? I get run all sorts queries, but not all of them would be useful. - π 08:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That was quick...

CP

RW

...wasn't it? Enjoy! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed. Hey, I am no longer an Übermensch. I have actually been actively working to reduce my edit count. - π 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I am "dead" Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Squirrel! ħuman 02:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks larron! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, awesome. Hey, how easy is it to update File:Api-active-editors-compl-RationalWiki.png? Last done Sept 09, btw. ħuman 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I recreate this pic at least once a month - I just don't upload it that often. But I did so, now: it's quite interesting, as it shows that there is more action here than at CP - one of the reasons that TK tries to come back from time to time: there is no one left to play with him at CP. This get's even clearer if you look at the pics on the right: they are in the same scale and show the same period of time - the last ninety days: unless Andy Schlafly switches to his Tremendous Stupidity Mode, less editors visit CP than RW. And these editors comment less frequently (partly, because they get blocked so quickly).

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I do find it amusing that we are now a busier site than CP. The only thing they have is the opportunity for occasional "high profile" stupidity generating traffic, like the Colbert Bump so evident in early December 09. And that was a very narrow spike once TK found the Nation's IP range. ħuman 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

PS, thank you very much for the update! ħuman 21:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked but I cannot find myself Tyrannis (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Monthly Edits at CP and RW

Monthly Editors at CP and RW

sic semper tyrannis - no, the table includes only those 150 who made the most edits: at the moment, it takes ~460 comments to make the team here at RW and ~410 for team CP...

Andy's normal level of stupidity isn't enough to reach the masses. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The new pic show the edits per month: since 2009, RW is busier than CP. I suppose we have to thank TK for this. (BTW, I'm not thrilled with the colors - any suggestions? And I need a nice place to stick this pic to...) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the colours because they have strong contrast. Although I would point out that November 2009 is an outlier because that is when Nx and I sorted through the images. - π 09:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the work with the images - the pic of the unique editors per month at CP, RW, and aSK shows indeed that the great number of edits in Nov 2009 was created by the usual bunch of editors.

Here, RW bests CP only twice: in Aug 2009 and now, Feb 2010. The spikes at CP's graph are like monuments to burned socks - may thoses rest in peace :-)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pibot

It seems like this talkpage could benefit from the irrational one's tireless services. Goonie, please do it. ħuman 03:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The irrational one and myself have taken care of this, Huw. It won't break your Wiki now. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 00:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. ħuman 03:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Grrr

Ace went on holiday and he's still ahead of me! Totnesmartin (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mei is 3rd in recent activity, last in general knowledge. Mei (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

One of these days I will pull ahead of Secret Squirrel.... Šţěŗĭļė belt 00:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Human and Susan's total edit count is unfathomable. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll get there. Just 400 more edits to go, but who's counting? Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I must confess, I am a consortium of seven people who all take two hours a day to make 50 more edits. Signed, H4. We are the CABAL bwuahahaha! ħuman 03:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn it, stop editing! I'm getting behind again.Šţěŗĭļė belt 01:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll never catch me, nah nah nah nah nah! Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Just a small change: bots are displayed in italics. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So extraordinary he must be woo-powered.

It is most amusing to me to find that if you sort this by average edits/day, the top six positions are bots, and Human. And he beats five of them into shabby submission. The next actual human in line is Pi in seventh place, but Huw edits at double his rate. Astonishing. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wait till we get some press coverage and the server promptly melts - David Gerard (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Stevo and C6541 are not bots... anyway, the recent edits/day column is probably more accurate. -- Nx / talk 02:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they're both outliers - Stevo hasn't contributed a thing in almost three years and did all of his work in a week. And C6541 has only been around a month. Human has kept up this rate for years, with a masterful consistency. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought Dave Gerard was going to give me a run for my money this month. One day, some day, I won't be here and people will wonder who that fucker was and why anyone cares... ħuman 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be like being de-Facebooked. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me—does Huw even have a Facebook page? I searched for "Huw Powell" once, but seven different people came up, and I couldn't tell if any of them were the one I wanted. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one that you want, baby. ħuman 03:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just bewildered that we list bots at all—this is about tracking active users, not active bots. If bots counting for anything, then Conservapedia could make a dozen of them, and legitimately claim they have more edits than us. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that most of your edits could have been done by a bot, you shouldn't cast dispersions on my army of workers. - π 08:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Human's and mine sure could - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ħuman 03:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm listing bots as there was a phase when some editors decides to become bots to perform a plethora of tedious edits. It would have been unfair to these human-bots to be excluded.
• I once had the bots in a separate list, this can be done again. But I'd prefer it this way, at least as long as there aren't to many bots. Otherwise we'll get a discussion who/which should be in/excluded.
• No, amusingly Conservapedia can't make a dozen of them. They have problems enough to keep a single bot(cp:User:EdBot) working!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think conservapedia's biggest idiot even know how his bot works. ħuman 08:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For your viewing pleasure:

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

Bot Prior May 09 Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug 09 Sep 09 Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09 Jan 10 Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 Total Average edits /day Recent edits /day Verdict ACDbot 1156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1156 3 0 Dead Aylesburymartin 83 53 1 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 0.2 0 Dead Bestofbot 538 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 538 2.6 0 Dead Capturebot 4690 596 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5288 21.4 0 Dead Capturebot2 14 52 415 312 272 291 272 394 424 523 266 236 283 3754 9.7 8.8 Very active Catbot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3508 0 0 70 0 220 3798 27.9 3.3 Very active Chancellor Palpatine 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Dead FedhajiBot 0 0 601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 601 66.8 0 Dead GenBot 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Dead IceBot 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Dead Indexbot 179 0 15 64 51 65 70 65 51 74 69 70 65 838 1.2 2.3 Active NxBot 413 60 20 29 6888 89 223 6315 149 3 41 149 986 15365 36.2 13.2 Hyperactive OCDBot 0 0 0 0 0 0 453 58 17 0 55 0 0 583 4.9 0.6 Semi-active Phantom Ninja 11 0 0 0 10 7 42 3 0 0 0 0 0 73 0.2 0 Dead Pibot 12 207 239 205 180 202 307 377 269 246 236 300 384 3164 6.4 10.3 Hyperactive PunchingBag 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 32 37 4 89 1 0.8 Semi-active RAbot 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 419 18.2 0 Dead Rdbot 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1.8 0 Dead Redirectbot 49 7 40 8 8 14 15 122 0 10 51 0 8 332 1 0.7 Semi-active Stubbot 2139 0 196 116 22 45 72 81 52 49 84 44 75 2975 3.1 2.3 Active WIGObot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 21 44 29 29 26 177 1 0.9 Semi-active Weaseldroid 61 2 0 0 0 0 0 34 22 0 0 0 0 119 0.4 0 Dead Wpbot 467 0 5 11 10 15 19 23 12 15 17 19 13 626 0.9 0.6 Semi-active

--larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Twelve out of 26 bots made the team, i.e, they had over ≈ 470 edits in total and therefore, were listed with the top 150 editors. I'll start to worry when more than 10% of our top 150 editors are bots... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can put any "dead" users on a separate page? This page is titled "Active users", not "Active users, and a whole bunch of inactive ones". Including the dead users just clogs it up and limits the page's usefulness. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There are different ways to chose the active editors - I just take the 150 editors with the most edits over all. IMO, this is especially interesting for Conservapedia, as there is quite a fluctuation beyond the group of sysops.

Why not remember the great contributors of the past?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd keep it as is, we don't want to manipulate the criteria to just see what we want, we need it to reflect the site as it is, so listing the top contributors of "recent edits", bots, dead or otherwise, is the best method for that. ^bomination 12:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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	Pink	5835	275	482	157	12.1	37.2
2	Caius	5527	461	645	483	8.6	11.4
3	AKjeldsen	5384	437	670	533	8	10.1
4	Capturebot	5288	365	247	171	21.4	30.9
5	WaitingforGodot	3237	360	339	205	9.5	15.8
6	SHahB	2924	106	999	212	2.9	13.8
7	Thunderkatz	2890	181	885	318	3.3	9.1
8	HeartOfGold	2721	901	205	59	13.3	46.1
9	NightFlare	2644	158	801	400	3.3	6.6
10	Interpreted	1779	179	928	258	1.9	6.9
11	PoorEd	1599	174	707	109	2.3	14.7
12	Linus	1573	219	888	260	1.8	6
13	Elassint	1253	609	356	100	3.5	12.5
14	Storytellershrink	1220	153	654	87	1.9	14
15	Irrationalatheist	1179	112	433	170	2.7	6.9
16	Jtl	1173	169	938	63	1.3	18.6
17	Wazza	1172	217	543	152	2.2	7.7
18	ACDbot	1156	607	383	2	3	578
19	MarcusCicero	1046	126	778	158	1.3	6.6
20	Fox	947	206	664	87	1.4	10.9
21	Jeeves	906	798	181	117	5	7.7
22	MiddleMan	898	1009	98	61	9.2	14.7
23	Lyra Silvertongue	896	96	703	45	1.3	19.9
24	Mei	891	390	142	46	6.3	19.4
25	Silver Sloth	891	116	758	225	1.2	4
26	Carptrash	889	435	221	83	4	10.7
27	Hojimachong	811	172	932	160	0.9	5.1
28	Uchiha	788	663	292	190	2.7	4.1
29	Remarcsd	754	109	918	64	0.8	11.8
30	Bayes	753	382	646	203	1.2	3.7

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyperactive

Dammit! Despite having a kick ass summer and better things to do than edit RationalWiki, I still find myself classified as being "hyperactive." Curses!!! Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 01:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just that, but you are like editor #7, right (ignoring bots)? ħuman 02:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Number 10, I think. Perhaps I will just have to leave and never return. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 02:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I thought you were on a camping holiday? What, they have wifi in Minnasoda's state parks? ħuman 03:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I was camping up in the BWCA. Until this afternoon. I'm home now, and back to all the awesome technology. And you know what? I kinda liked not having so much as a clock around me. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 06:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what camping is for. No internet, no cellphones, make fire on your own, even perhaps catch food on your own? Good times, indeed. ħuman 07:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, looks like I had my busiest month evah on RW. And yet, strangely, I have no idea what I did... --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

neither have we :) Totnesmartin (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sysops in bold

Seeing as sysops are so numerous (only 8% of edits were made by non-sysops, non-crats, non-bots), I think it would make more sense to put sysops in bold and bureaucrats in bold-italics. Perhaps make bots small. This would provide better contrast, IMO. -Chthonios (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, thought along the same lines. 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm on the verge of 60k edits... must ... get ... life ... ħuman 20:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first step is always admitting that you have a problem. ^bomination 14:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cthonios. Blue (is useful) 15:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I like it the way it is: I prefer it to be consistent with Conservapedia:Active users. But perhaps I'll highlight bureaucrats in another way next month. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that being a sysop here is like being an editor at other wikis, and being a crat like being a sysop, it is consistent, in a way. -- Nx / talk 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I put all non-commoners in bold face: i.e., at CP those with block or edit rights, too... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Übermensch

AT LAST! ^bomination 21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You were very busy this month indeed. ħuman 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from the edit totals that it's time to officially fix the spelling on this wiki. It's like their U key is broken - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, but I still have more total edits than the next five Commonwealth editors combined. The next editor after that is a merkin. ħuman 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely there has to be a userscript for that sort of thing... ^bomination 13:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My edit totals have been truly amazing since a big Ken stole my preview button and ran away - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, that, and since you found the link to "all articles" ;) ħuman 20:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And undoubtedly a metric fuck ton of caffeine. ^bomination 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I still have it. But only just. I think I'm making up for it in Sept, however. ^bomination 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1153 edits in January, I'm back in the game bitches! ^bomination 23:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, at not far off twice as many edits as the next prolific for the month (Thunderkatz) and nearly 4 times as many for the next by "recent average edits" (Blue) I actually feel quite ashamed... ^bomination 23:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm hotly anticipating the next update to see if I counter-act February's dire performance... ^bomination 14:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

From special:editcount: You made 441 edits over 31 days for an average of ~14.225 edits/day. You were the 6th most active editor. Тy^Talk. 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I made 2217 :P Тy^Talk. 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah bullsh*t. Oh well, I'm on the verge of semi-retirement anyway. ^bomination 14:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Тy^Talk. 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Number 50

Huzzah! Though it pains me to say that the table now no longer shows 1337 edits. An apt description, indeed. EddyP (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, it isn't updated yet. That is last month. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So I remain leet for a while. This pleases me. EddyP (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Limbo

I'm intrigued to see I'm neither an active user nor noticeably absent. If this keeps up I'll have to stop leaving and never coming back. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Thanks to everyone who corrected the recurring typo (length/lenght). I hope this is the last time it occurred: it was hardcoded in the program which generates the table...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kels

Kels is in the active users list and the notably absent list. Has this ever happened to another user? Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 21:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more that Kels stopped rather abruptly and because of the overlap in timing, she's in both places. Hard to say history wise, but there were other prominent editors that did the same. sterile^talk 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have dropped of the user list entirely

:-( Pi 3:14 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)–

So you got a life? Sorry to hear about that. ^theist 01:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

#	user	edits in Feb, Mar & Apr
50	BMcP	221
51	Π	220
52	DasRationalpersone	207
53	LArron	202
54	Haamer	201
55	Tmtoulouse	193

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User Groups

At the moment I have troubles with getting the user groups (see here). I waited for a solution - therefore the delay - but with none forthcoming, I decided to omit them. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Block log

I wonder who'd be top if the block log was included in this? Sophie^Wilder 17:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, blocks received or blocks given? Тy^... 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Given, because it's active users. Sophie^Wilder 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No update since January?

I was hoping to get some insight in the user base dynamics. :( --ZooGuard (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If anonymous users were tracked...

How high up would 173.32.30.79 be? Probably pretty high, huh? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Already there, under User:Osaka Sun...--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

June, July and August...

It looks like LArron is on a vacation. :) Anyway, the lapse demonstrates for the umpteenth time that RW lacks redundancy in "staffing" - too many things depend on a single person continuing to volunteer time and effort.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Dancing on the corpses' ashes} 13:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:Genghis Khant started the whole thing in the current format in 2008. Before him User:Jtl had a look at the stats, I think - but that was even before my time, and sadly, I never had an exchange with Jtl.
• I took over in Nov 2008: nearly six years ago. In the beginning, I recognized all the editors in the top-10 - today, not even half of them, as I'm ignoring many of the current discussions.
• At the time, I built up a couple of perl routines to query the edit data. It was intended for Conservapedia, but worked with other wikis (RationalWiki, Citizendium, A Storehouse of Knowledge, etc.) However, it only takes into account non-anonymous editors. That's fine for CP and CZ, but here at RW, editing via RW becomes more and more important
• User:Nx integrated some very interesting queries into RW's API. Especially useful could be
  • http://rationalwiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=activeusers&aclimit=500&acmonth=08&acyear=2014 gives you a list of the active users in Aug 2014 - including IPs
• Every time I update RW's stats, I'm thinking: "I really should include the IPs". But then, I crank up the old machine, and use the clever queries only for a plausibility check. And nobody complaints - as only a handful editors look at it: not enough to justify eine Extrawurst für RW zu braten (come up with a RW-centric solution)
• So, if anyone wants to improve/update/overtake this page, go for it :-)

--larron (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"today, not even half of them, as I'm ignoring many of the current discussions." So basically your sitting in a room not interacting with people while recording everything we do. --Miekal 15:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So, is the active users table based on that API query, or crawling the logs? What exactly do you query, the Recent changes? I can try convincing the snake to do some stuff the next time you are not available, but a few starting points would be nice.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)