List of Wikipedians by number of edits

== Old talk == * /Archive 1 * /Archive 2 Warning: much of the talk in this archive is obsolete - refering to old ways of generating the page. ==User:Ram-Man== Is User:Ram-Man a bot? User:Acegikmo1 16:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) :That account contains a mixture of bot and hand edits, IIRC. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 16:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==What Day and Time?== The project page states that this information is updated weekly. Out of curiousity, about what day and time is this done? User:ClockworkTroll 17:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I've thought the same thing. You can get an idea from the page history, but it would be good to state it on the page. A little harder - it would be good to include it in the .csv file too. -- User:Solipsist 18:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I believe, though am not certain, that the script is run on a download of the database and, may even be run manually. This script updates the CSV file. When I notice that the date has changed at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm Wikipedia stats site] this is my signal that the CSV has been updated. I then run my other script that converts CSV to wikitext and uploaded here. Thus there are at least one, and probably two, layers of manual work involved, thus no fixed day and time. :I am willing to send my script (in Python) to anyone who wants it - this should mean that the CSV -> wikitext conversion would happen more quickly after the csv becomes available. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 18:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Ah, thanks. Muchly manual - I assumed as much. One more quick question: The page was updated by User:Pcb21 to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits&curid=755548&diff=0&oldid=0 read October 2nd] as the revision date, but none of the data in the CSV or on the page itself seems to have changed. Please forgive my ignorance, but am I missing something, or was something overlooked? User:ClockworkTroll 20:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Yes. I saw that the stats pages had been updated to October 2nd, so assumed that the csv had been updated, and ran my script to update this page. Unfortunately the csv file had not actually changed. This seems to have been a temporary problem, as the Oct 10 update seems to be back to normal. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 16:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) I was going to ask the same question. The data was put on the page in September, so it can't be from October. User:Acegikmo1 21:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Ack! == I'm less than a 1000 edits away from the #1 spot in the ==All namespaces== list! Honest, I'm not a bot. --User:Maveric14922:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::So you think you are not a bot... Although you might enjoy activities outside of Wikipedia and memories of a full and rich life, can you be so sure you are not a replicant? :-) -- User:Solipsist 10:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) *And to think, I was here to see it happen. -User:Litefantastic 23:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Do you have proof for that? :) -- User:Schneelocke 00:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) * I have many fewer edits than you, and I ''am'' a bot! User:ClockworkTroll 03:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) ** (No, I'm not.) User:ClockworkTroll 04:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Congratulations! User:Dori | User talk:Dori 03:59, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC) ==Bots== What is the best way to treat bots in this table? Treat them like ordinary users as now, mark them as a bot but keep or remove them completely? The solution would need to deal with the fact that some accounts are mixed bot/manual. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 06:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I implemented one solution. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 17:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::I think having the bots entirely separate from the regular users is a bit confusing, not to mention unfair to such users as Ram-Man, who (I believe) is only partially a bot. Supposing the word "(bot)" were added after the usernames of bots? User:Rdsmith4 00:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Could do it that way, and I did consider it. In the end I went the whole hog and separated them - your point about Ramman is fair but he is unusual because he created the first bot, all bots since have their own accounts as a matter of policy. Ramman's place in history is assured so I hope you wont be too offended. On the other hand, I don't that folks like Mav, Olivier, Bryan Derksen etc get their fair due when their are surrounded by a bunch of bots. What I ''don't'' like is the positional change information includes changes due to bots, I am thinking about how to avoid this. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 13:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::I've now implemented an alternative solution that I like much more. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 16:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::An anon suggested that Timwi should be counted as a bot, Schneelooke reverted, who is right? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::::Looks like a vandal to me. User:Timwi has a flesh-and-blood type user page. User:ClockworkTroll 16:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Timwi runs a Perl script, m:Useless Perl Scripts, which automatically corrects double redirects. If you take a short look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Timwi&limit=500&offset=0 his user contributions], it can be easily seen that these non-human edits (all marked with the edit summary "fix double-redirect") make up a significant portion, if not the majority of his edits. Since User:Ram-Man, who is a real person and an admin, is listed as a bot due to originally running what became "rambot" under his account, Timwi should also be so listed. Of course it would've been better if Timwi got separate bot account, but he has indicated no desire to do to get one (User_talk:Timwi/Archive/Apr_04#Your_bot). :Keeping bot edits separate is good for several reasons (e.g. it is easy to write a bad bot, however well intentioned you are, and sometimes the only way to stop the bot is to ban it, but we wouldn't want to be in the embarassing situation of banning excellent contributors like Timwi) thus I propose to keep Timwi and Ramman listed in grey - hopefully they won't mind ''too'' much - and this page will act, in some small way, to reinforce the bot policy. Schneelocke, Clockwork - is this ok? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 21:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::I think we should get a statement from Timwi (and Ram-Man) on this first. I know Timwi, and I do know for a fact that he is not a bot, so it would be unfair to label him as such, even if he utilizes a bot occasionally. In particular, it would be nice to get an idea of how many of Timwi's edits are bot-edits; if it's, for example, 90%, then it would clearly be justified labelling him as a bot, while if it's, for example, 10%, it wouldn't. -- User:Schneelocke 22:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) 4148 of Timwi's last 5000 edits (83%) were bot edits. The percentage is probably lower overall, but I don't have the desire to check all of his edits. :How did you come up with that figure? -- User:Schneelocke 23:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) I saved the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Timwi&limit=5000&offset=0 5000 edits] to a text file and ran it through a Perl script that incremented for every line that contained the bot's edit summary of "fix double-redirect". ::Then I don't see why you can't do the same for all of his edits. -- User:Schneelocke 23:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Well, the server times out when you set the offset too high... so I don't have time to try to get those pages to load. You are of course free to try. ::::If you give me the script... -- User:Schneelocke 00:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Ok:

$count = 0;
while(<>){
 if($_ =~ /fix double-redirect/) {
  $count++;
 }
}
print "count=$count\n";

:Ah, OK, thanks. I think that can be shortened to "perl -ne '$count++ if(m/fix double redirect/); END { print $count; }'" actually; in any case, I'll look through Timwi's history and see what happens. That being said, I think that even a large number of bot edits would not be enough to label him (or Ram-Man) as a bot. It would be appropriate to include a note about the bot edits, of course (something like "an estimated XYZ of these edits are bot-edits"), but it wouldn't be fair to totally neglect the manual work he did. :Anyhow, I managed to get the first 10000 of his edits without a timeout; let's hope the rest will work out, too. ^^ -- User:Schneelocke 00:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) How are bots identified? Is this being done manually, or is there a list somewhere? == Update == Is there any way that this page can be automagically re-generated every week? The date on the page now is from a month ago, though the list was updated at some unknown point after that. It just seems to me that there is too much required human interaction in this task for it to be reliable. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all of the factors against such a thing, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be a large undertaking to write a cron job to run every week or so during off-peak hours, and it would be a nice little thing for motivation purposes. Just a thought. User:ClockworkTroll 15:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Some thoughts and options. You'll know from the above talk how this page is updated. It firstly relies on a successful database dump. This step probably can't be trusted to cron without fail, because it involves chucking gigabytes of data around (I believe). However if lots of people like the data on this page - and more so than the more restricted list on the stats page (only has 50 users), then we should appeal to Erik to change his script. Then this latter script (my python script) would be redundant, and at least some time would be saved. What do you think? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 16:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) :: I feared there would be such an impediment as a large DB dump. Personally, I find the CSV much more useful than the page itself because I haven't yet earned a place on the main list, but I would assume that the larger (1000 wikipedian/list) page is more useful to many simply because earning a place on that list is much easier than making the "top 50", and therefore doesn't seem to be an impossible challenge and therefore a useful motivator. User:ClockworkTroll 17:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::: Yes the 50 is not enough, but I am sure it would just be one line to change in Erik's script. Incidentally when I arrived here 22 months ago, you needed about 600 edits to get into the top 200, then I changed it 500 entries in the list and then later to 1000. But the minimum requirements are still higher now (about 1000 edits) than then. I can change the number of entries by changing one line of my script if need be. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 19:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Archive == First of all, I would like to thank User:Pcb21 for taking on the task of updating the page. It's an important task that allows people to keep track of how much they've contributed, but it also seems to be a thankless job. I have noticed one issue about the updates. The Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits archive isn't updated anymore. If I remember correctly, it used to be updating by actually moving this page to (for example) Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias by number of edits until September 26, 2004 (if Sept. 24 were the date on which this page were updated). Then this page would be re-created with updated information. Recently, this page has been updated by simply changing the data and the last archive that exists is from Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits archive. Older updates are now located in this page's edit history. My question is: Should be continue to create archives by moving old versions of this page or should we leave old information in the page history? Cheers, User:Acegikmo1 23:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Moving the page did turn out to be a bit fiddly (in fact stopping doing it probably reduced the time it took me to update the page by about 75%!) and I did come to the conclusion that the value of doing it wasn't worth the effort considering, as you point out, the data is in history anyway. However if there is a strong will to have a full archive I could start doing it again no problem. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 23:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::If it makes updating more efficient, then not moving the page is no problem. What do you think about having links to older versions of this page on the archive page? User:Acegikmo1 00:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Yes, let's do that. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 13:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Bots == Hey, I'm not a bot, nor do I have the bot designation, yet I'm listed as such on the list! To clarify a little bit, most of the edits that I performed under the account "Ram-Man" were actually done manually by hand. That may be hard to believe, but I used complex SQL queries and other data manipulation on my computer to create the article text, and then I manually cut and pasted the articles into Wikipedia. It was a long and tedious process, but the rambot itself (which automated the process) was not invented until some time later. As such, many of the "bot" entries are not actually entries added by a bot. It is true that the rambot used the "Ram-Man" account for a short time before moving to "rambot", but that represents fewer edits than at first assumed. -- User:Ram-Man 12:04, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) Any reason why Robbot has a ranking number when none of the other bots has? Perhaps, given Ram-man's human condition, Robbot's number should be removed, Ram-man should get a numbber, and the rest of the top 20 names should have their numbers changed. This is, of course, assuming that Robbot is a bot and Ram-Man isn't... User:Grutness 07:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==We need a resolution== I've already reverted this page twice, and before breaking the three-revert rule, I'd like to ask what exactly is supposed to be going on with this page. I am inclined to revert the latest entry because it was this person's first edit, and is a repeat of another similarly garbage username's last edit here. However, that reverts to Ram-Man not being included in the list. What exactly is supposed to be happening here? [[User:Mo0|User:Mo0[User Talk:Mo0]]] 20:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Is it important in the long term? If the script that makes this page is modified to correctly identify all the bots and part-bots and mark them correctly, then when the page is next updated (once a month - in a couple of weeks?) the problem will go away, right? User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 20:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::In the end, you are correct, when it's updated it won't matter. However, if someone decides to continue vandalizing it if they don't get their way, then we're back to square one. I'm just worried this fight will repeat every month. [[User:Mo0|User:Mo0[User Talk:Mo0]]] 23:26, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::Well, it's been almost a month this time around... kind of thought that's how long it's supposed to be. [[User:Mo0|User:Mo0[User Talk:Mo0]]] 03:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::Why don't you get off your backside and update it every week then, assuming it is physically possible? ::::::That's not a very helpful comment, Mr. Anonymous. User:Mo0 was not complaining, merely commenting, I think. You possibly need to chill out and remember this is a volunteer effort. Quite why there is such a spat about who's edited more tham whom, the Lord alone know. (Though that said, one more edit to me...) --User:Tagishsimon, number 166 or nearest offer on the list that counts :::::::It is rather naughty of you to re-format my comment to make it look like I was replying to Mo0, when of course my comment was directed to Ben - who ''was'' sharp about it needing to be weekly updates not monthly - and then take me to task for being rude to Mo0. ::::::Because I don't know how, and don't even know if I can. All I am asking is that a consensus be reached on the issue that is causing so many edits and reverts here. [[User:Mo0|User:Mo0[User Talk:Mo0]]] 21:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Odd results in the CSV == Something isn't right about this week's CSV... This is the data I got last week: *Main namespace edits (last 30 days): 320 (214) *Non-main namespace edits (last 30 days): 735 (653) *Total edits (last 30 days): 1055 (867) This is what I got this week: *Main namespace edits (last 30 days): 158 (114) *Non-main namespace edits (last 30 days): 150 (133) *Total edits (last 30 days): 308 (247) My number of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=ClockworkTroll contributions] is almost 1500, and I'm reasonably sure that I didn't make any ''negative'' edits, so it's safe to say that there's a little glitch somewhere. Just a heads up to anybody that relies on the CSV results that hasn't noticed already. User:ClockworkTroll 04:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Update - seems better now. User:ClockworkTroll 18:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) *I've noticed something similar in the listed ''more up to date but untabulated list '' which credits me with 308 edits (my contributions list is currently around the 2000 mark). This could, of course, be related to exactly how much more up to date it is, but my 308th edit was on about Oct 20th. User:Grutness 06:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) == WP:PNA == I'm flagging this page as needing attention as the data on it are now a month old and it needs updating. User:PedanticallySpeaking 17:17, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC) ==Update script== zwitter has created (and released into the public domain) a python script for producing a list of users by edits which I've modified slightly to format in wikitax and uploaded [http://www.steinsky.me.uk/usersbyedits.py here]. I don't know python so I can't say if my changes will work. To use it you'll need to take the database dump and create a users table: :create table kate_curold users (select cur_user, inverse_timestamp from cur) union (select old_user, inverse_timestamp from old); create index user_timestamp on kate_curold_users(cur_user, inverse_timestamp); and add the data from the db dump to run the script on it. I don't have the time (and probabaly don't have the expertese) to do this myself, so I've left the script up for somebody else to play with. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 17:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) I just threw together a PHP script that parses the CSV data and creates the list. I'll see about posting it later after I tweak a few more things. - User:MattTM | User_talk:MattTM 19:34, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC) The list hadn't been updated in over a month, so I went ahead and ran my script. I tried to match the style of the previous output as closely as I could. If anyone notices a problem with new list, tell me. I'll update it again next week if no one else does. I'm not sure when the CSV data is updated, so I couldn't fix the date at the top of the page. - User:MattTM | User_talk:MattTM 00:16, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) ==Updates== *Either the date at the top of the page is wrong, or I'm getting an old version of the csv. not sure which. --User:DMG413 03:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) ** The CSV wasn't updated this week, but it was updated last Monday. Even then, the contents seemed somewhat suspect to me (numbers were clearly a bit low, and the initial CSV contents that day were from 3 weeks prior). -- User:ClockworkTroll 04:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) **As noted in the discussion above this one, I updated the list with the most recent CSV data, but I was unsure of how old the data was. Going by CT's above comment, I'm guessing the data I used was from November 8th. I'll fix it. - User:MattTM | User_talk:MattTM 04:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) ==Is this page still actively being updated?== It's been almost 3 weeks since the last update. Is anybody still bothering with this? User:Livajo_|_User_talk:Livajo">User:Livajo|User:Livajo | User talk:Livajo 07:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I was under the impression that it was updated once a month, so don't start worrying yet! User:Grutness|^{User_talk:Grutness} ::I see. I misread the statement that says the raw data is updated weekly, thinking the page was. My bad. User:Livajo_|_User_talk:Livajo">User:Livajo|User:Livajo | User talk:Livajo 08:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::It used to be updated weekly; I hope to start doing that again. For now I updated the main namespace list using the Perl one-liner update script. Crude, I know... --User:Brockert 01:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) :I had been putting off updating the list because I didn't know when the CSV data had been updated. I'll just go ahead and do it anyway. - User:MattTM | User_talk:MattTM 05:16, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) == Removal == What happened to all the stuff like positional change, last thirty days, and colour-coding based on bot activity? User:Ingoolemo User_talk:Ingoolemo 04:39, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC) :It's back. - User:MattTM | User_talk:MattTM 05:17, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) ::It's only back for the "Main Namespace Edits" but not for ''All namespaces" User:Paul August User_talk:Paul August 17:16, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) :::It never was there for that section. The data required doesn't exist in the CSV, so it would be a case of writing a script to compare pairs of (dated) CSVs, or have the (almost mythical :)) other script that generates the CSV updated. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 19:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Any likelihood that the pages linked to at the bottom of this page (most recent edits etc) will eventually be updated?User:Grutness|^{User_talk:Grutness} 05:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::There is a high probability that, at some point in the future, those pages will be updated. --en:User:Brockert en:User talk:Brockert 23:30, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) == Suggestions == The ranks need leading noughts to straighten the columns. Can you add a list ..by speed of edits? User:Lysdexia 01:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Adding spaces to even out the numbers shouldn't be difficult. There's no way to find people's editing speed without looking at each editor's contributions page, and even then it would be approximate. This page is generated from the CSV, which only contains the editor's username and their number of edits. :As a side note, '''do not edit people's comments'''. You are free to change anything in the article space, but please do not modify other people's text in the talk or user space. --User:Brockert 02:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) == Question == Without loading that massive list, and without actually counting them, is there any expedient way I can check on how many edits I have, to the minute? User:EventHorizon 06:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Yup - Kate's tools (wonderful to see them back in action!). go to [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/kates-tools/index.action], select "Count edits" and type in your username. User:Grutness|^{User_talk:Grutness} 07:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) Currently out of action User:Stirling Newberry 03:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) :True, sadly. However, as noted on the Village Pump, Kate has put an earlier version online at [http://zwinger.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits.cgi]. User:Grutness|^{User_talk:Grutness} 09:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Statistical analysis == Has anyone ever done any analysis of the number of edits? For example, creating a histogram of the number of edits and comparing it to the normal curve, as well as finding mean and standard deviation? I, personally, think that would be fascinating. I'm sure someone out there could whip up a program that takes in the number of edits from the SCV dump every week and graphs it all, as well as finds those statistics. User:LockeShocke 02:22, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) I've done some work on it. User:Stirling Newberry 02:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) :And? Got anything to show off? :) User:LockeShocke 18:01, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) [http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002699.html#2699 A model of decision information using wikipedia]User:Stirling Newberry 17:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Case of _size matters_== This list should be based on amount of text (+allowance for pics maybe) submittet. Else, I'll submit any change in an article in tiny bits and climb up the list like that. --User:J heisenberg 11:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :And if you do do that, so what? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 13:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::I meant it would be good if the list showed the amount contributed, not the number of contributions.--User:J heisenberg 15:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :This is simply a statistical list. It is not a "ranking" of Wikipedians by quality of edits or anything else. Some use the 'preview' button more than others, while some go out of their way to inflate their edit count, but the list should always (obviously) be taken with a grain of salt. User:Rdsmith4 16:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::How about a supplementary list_of_Wikipedians_by_text_submitted -- for example. Maybe I'd make the top 1000 then ,-) --User:J heisenberg 17:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::It sounds good to have, but it is not practical to implement. Before you can rank a list, you have to keep count of each entry's delta. If such count was not maintained in the past, some processes must run through the database to "diff" each edit. Just imagine the degradation to the server while you generate the counts. I think I can do without it. User:Kowloonese 01:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::It'd only have potential if it was done via a downloaded copy of the database, rather than off the live servers. If that was possible, I wouldn't mind it. :::::The SQL can't be that hard... a join on user id versus diff of edits (only the positive ones). Someone with the capacity to download the DB would have to do it ::::::[http://download.wikimedia.org/ Anyone can download the database] (normally). User:Rdsmith4 19:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I wouldn't mind seeing such a list either - but as a complement to this list, not a replacement. I realise my own placing is artificially high because I tend to write a bit, save, write a bit more, which lists me higher than if I saved all in one go once I'd finished, but it would be interesting to know how much the really prolific writers do write. it'd also have the advantage of removing a lot of the "change word X to word Y" bots. But, as I say, it would be nice to have that ''as well as'' this list. If it were possible. User:Grutness|^{User_talk:Grutness} 12:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Colour coding == The colour coding seems to have been switched off, but it's still there in the source. What's up? User:Ingoolemo User_talk:Ingoolemo Donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 06:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) :It's there for the first list, but not the second. It's working fine for me on the first list. 00:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC) == Updating == Is anyone updating this list? Last data are from December 2004. User:Rsabbatini :It can only be updated when [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm this page] gets updated by the stats script. The stats script is not compatible with 1.4 version of Mediawiki. I believe the creator of the script (Erik Zachte) intends to re-do the stats script so that it works with 1.5. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 17:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I await the upgrade of the script. I should be in at least the top 1000 now. This last version says I'm in 17969th position with 8 edits! -_-; �User:Markaci�User_talk:Markaci�Special:Contributions/Markaci:2005-03-12 22:59 Z ::I'd also like to see this updated. Any ETA for this? Anything we could help with? --User:Piotrus User_talk:Piotrus 22:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::I guess part of the problem is that the full database with the change history has grown to well over 80GB. I believe that this list and the .csv was generated by running a script against a snapshot version of the database downloaded by a 3rd party. Now that the full database is so large it is probably impractical to download it in any reasonable length of time, and not so easy to find space enough to keep it. Perhaps it is time to have a word with the inclusionists - there is some harm in keeping every bit of information lying around. -- User:Solipsist 00:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Erm, no. The script was run on-site. The real problem was that the script assumed the database was in MediaWiki 1.3 format, whereas we now use 1.4. Since the database layout is changing again for 1.5, I don't think Erik Zachte plans to write a script for 1.4. Thus no stats. Inclusionists, as you were. Solipist, stop spreading the FUD! :). User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::Well that is the impression given by the discussion above (Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits#Update_script and Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits#Case_of__size_matters_) both of which recommend people to download the database and run their own script to update this page. -- User:Solipsist 15:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) == � symbol... == I have the impression that it tends to be used to signify someone has died, so at first sight it looked as if Ram-Man was dead but still made 143 edits in the 30 days beforehand... Not important at all, I know, but perhaps another symbol? -- User:KittySaturn 08:59, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC) You're right about it being a death notice, among other things (see Dagger (typography)). Maybe astericks could be used for the bots. User:Dralwik 15:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) I totaly agree to use anything else than the � symbol. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Ram-Man is the first user with that kind of symbol. I thought avid is dead... Please use an astericks, or something like that. : I know it to be third in the heirarchy of that stuff. Once you've used one asterik, you use two for the second note, then a dagger for the third. -- user:zanimum :I don't see that as much of a problem. The symbol indicates a bot, which, being a bot, is not a live person. Since it is not live, it is, well, dead. Cheer up, people.—User:Ezhiki 21:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) ::Haha! I laughed out loud when I read that. Very nice logic there. ^_^; �User:Markaci�User_talk:Markaci�Special:Contributions/Markaci:2005-03-12 22:59 Z ==Erik triumphs!== According to a message on wikipedia-l, Erik Zachte has mananged to do a stats scripts for 1.4... I'll try and change out the details soon and hopeful get this page going again.... User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 21:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) * Yay! :) – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 22:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Updated using my old script. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 10:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Bots not marked as such == The following are bots but are not shown in grey: * User:Pearle * User:Grammarbot * User:HasharBot * User:Snobot * User:NetBot HTH HAND --User:Phil Boswell | User talk:Phil Boswell 13:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) ::Thanks, added to the page and to the list of bots in my script, which is maintained by hand. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 14:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) == I generated pages == It's been bugging me that the HTML list hasn't been updated in some time, so I went and wrote a little app that generated tables from the CSV in the same format as we've had. I don't know how old the CSV data is, but it seems to be significantly more recent than the HTML page. Let me know if there's anything I forgot or otherwise got wrong, I'll be sure to update my code. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 22:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :It seems that the arrows are pointing in the wrong direction. User:Tom Radulovich 22:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :User:KevinBot honestly says it is Bot at its user page. Also, it brags that on April 19 it made 31,850 edits, while you show 1K less. User:Mikkalai 01:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: I just take the data from the CSV: it may be outdated. I have no way of knowing when it was run. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 01:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :The previous version contained the date when the script was run. User:Mikkalai 01:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: The last page had the date when the CSV was updated: I have no way of knowing when it was updated, so I removed it for now. When the CSV is updated again, I'll know and update the page accordingly. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 01:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Indeed the arrows are pointing the wrong direction. I, personally, am now ranked 612th but it says I've droped 129 slots... even though I used to be in the 800s. ;) --user:tomf688^{(User talk:Tomf688)} 01:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) :: I can fix that! :D I'll update in a couple of minutes. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 01:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::: Thanks for catching that, Tom. It's all better now. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 01:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::By the way, nice job on the update. Also, you might want to mention somewhere that this list is as of April 21. --user:tomf688^{(User talk:Tomf688)} 01:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) :::::Okay: added that. Glad you like it. I figured that I would take to updating this page whenever the CSV is updated. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 02:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) "This is the list as of 27 April 2005". That doesn't seem right to me, unless I've suddenly doubled my tally in just over a week! I'd say it's more like data from early February. User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 22:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC) : All I can say is that this is the data that was present in the CSV update during the week of the 27th... – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 22:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ::Perhaps it doesn't include edits to talk pages and the like? That might make it more accurate. User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 22:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :: I see no reason why it would include data from main pages but not from talk pages: after all, all of the data is built from the same database... – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 22:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :::Yeah, good point. Whatever it is, thanks for coming along and sorting this page out. User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 22:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :::: I do what I can, but unfortunately I'm limited by the frequency, format, and quality of the data I receive. :/ – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ==Removed== The following section is full of meaningless data. For example, what the heck would mean the change of 62,730 in position? There is a methodological error somewhere for the case of gainers, since downgoers look reasonable. User:Mikkalai 20:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :Without prejudging, 23149 wikipedians have edited EN at least 10 pages, and presumably many more people have edited less than 10 pages. Someone going from no edits to a low number of thousand edits in the 30 days would rise from the bottom of a very long list indeed to feature in the top 1000 ... a jump of 62k, though odd looking, is well within the bounds of possibility. --User:Tagishsimon User_talk:Tagishsimon :: Indeed that's true. I was skeptical at first as well, but upon inspection everything turned out approximately correct. has made all of his now 5363 edits in the last 30 days. That's very impressive by any standard. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 22:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :::Impressive, or insane? ;) --user:tomf688^{(User talk:Tomf688)} 22:34, May 6, 2005 (UTC) :::: The two are not mutually exclusive, my friend. Quite the opposite, I have found. ;) – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 22:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC) That's what I have in mind when I say that there is something inherently wrong in this approach. It is clear that there is a HUGE tail of occasional contributors, and the first column merely shows that a number of newbies suddenly became active. I would be more interested in mover and shakers among already active contributors, i.e., among those who already had, like, 1,500 edits ''before'' the jump, not ''after''. Then there would be no such a stark contrast between the left and right sides. As a replacement of the current left table I'd suggest a third one, kind of "Jump-starters", the ones who went from, say, less than 100 contribs to some impressive number. And since we are speaking about the movement with respect to a "dormant" tail, a more informative data would be the number of edits, rather than change in the position. User:Mikkalai 01:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC) : It would be easy for me to make the cutoff N edit before rather than N edits after, and you're right: it does make sense that way. I'll make the changes to my code now. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 01:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :: I reran the scripting including only users who had 1000 edits as of 30 days ago. User:Jimbo Wales as the #3 positional loser? – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 01:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::Your new chart does not match its description. You say "''among users that had at least 1000 edits in all namespaces as of 30 days ago.''". � User:Grm wnr who has risen 956 should be 44th or better. She or he is 282 => was not in the top 1000 30 days ago. --User:Tagishsimon User_talk:Tagishsimon :::: That is an anomoly caused by the fact that the raw database rankings count ''all'' users in ''all'' wikipedias: German, Spanish, Japanese, etc. I specifically extract filter out all of the users except the EN language ones for this list, but I don't change the database-supplied ranking changes. – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 01:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Then the introductary wording needs to be changed. If you can sum Position + Rise then you could surely filter out any that givce a result > 1000, and exclude these from the table, non? Bit 'tis a lovely chart; thank you for the work. --User:Tagishsimon User_talk:Tagishsimon :::::I'm not sure what you mean by "filtering out any that givs a result > 1000". It seems unfair to remove any user that may have increased by a large margin that may not be a new user, although it seems perfectly reasonable to only consider users that had a minimum number of 1000 edits as of 30 days ago... I'm glad you like the chart though. :) – User:ClockworkSoulUser talk:ClockworkSoul 13:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC) == Movers and Shakers == These lists show the users with the 15 largest jumps in main space edit rank, both up and down, among users with at least 1500 edits in all namespaces. {| cellspacing=8 |- | valign=top style="border: 1px solid #C0C0C0;" |

Gained

{| cellspacing=10 |- ! User ! Positional
change |- | 1 – User:Oliver Chettle |align="center"| ↑ 62730 |- | 2 – User:FuriousFreddy |align="center"| ↑ 59937 |- | 3 – User:Feco |align="center"| ↑ 58600 |- | 4 – User:TheParanoidOne |align="center"| ↑ 51514 |- | 5 – User:Vegaswikian |align="center"| ↑ 4340 |- | 6 – User:Kbdank71 |align="center"| ↑ 4106 |- | 7 – User:FreplySpang |align="center"| ↑ 2353 |- | 8 – User:Zscout370 |align="center"| ↑ 1636 |- | 9 – User:Jaberwocky6669 |align="center"| ↑ 1527 |- | 10 – User:SchmuckyTheCat |align="center"| ↑ 1494 |- | 11 – User:Allen3 |align="center"| ↑ 1431 |- | 12 – User:Justinc |align="center"| ↑ 1239 |- | 13 – User:JeremyA |align="center"| ↑ 1224 |- | 14 – User:Harry491 |align="center"| ↑ 1116 |- | 15 – User:JIP |align="center"| ↑ 1062 |} | valign=top style="border: 1px solid #C0C0C0;" |

Lost

{| cellspacing=10 |- ! User ! Positional
change |- | 1 – User:Dr Zen |align="center"| ↓ 256 |- | 2 – User:Fantasy |align="center"| ↓ 234 |- | 3 – User:Irismeister |align="center"| ↓ 186 |- | 4 – User:Orthogonal |align="center"| ↓ 171 |- | 5 – User:Improv |align="center"| ↓ 170 |- | 6 – User:Carrp |align="center"| ↓ 165 |- | 7 – User:ClockworkTroll |align="center"| ↓ 163 |- | 8 – User:Wyss |align="center"| ↓ 160 |- | 9 – User:Ilyanep |align="center"| ↓ 159 |- | 10 – User:Pfortuny |align="center"| ↓ 153 |- | 11 – User:Perl |align="center"| ↓ 147 |- | 12 – User:Onebyone |align="center"| ↓ 146 |- | 13 – User:Xed |align="center"| ↓ 141 |- | 14 – User:Rotem Dan |align="center"| ↓ 139 |- | 15 – User:JesseW |align="center"| ↓ 139 |} |} ==Regarding the "movers and shakers" table== The above table of movers and shakers, is, I think, not a very good idea, which is why I have removed it from the page. If someone wants to generate the data for their own benefit and keep it to themselves, by all means, go ahead, but I do not think it belongs on this page. The existence of this table will further encourage people to compete over getting the prime position on the gained table, which I do not think is necessarily good for Wikipedia (think lots and lots and lots of trivial edits). And why should we "punish" Wikipedians who took a break of a month or so by putting their names up near the top of the page? —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 14:57, May 7, 2005 (UTC) :I agree. Thanks for removing it. User:Shanes 15:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :Also agree. Editcountitis is becoming endemic at RfA, too. -- User:Cecropia | User talk:Cecropia 17:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :I disagree. It's very interesting. -- User:Earl Andrew - User talk:Earl Andrew 20:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::Then the author can move it to his user page and announce that it can be accessed there for the curious. As Lowellian said, it encourages the posting of trivial edits to see the numbers rise. Go count pigeons in the park instead. Throw them some peanuts and you will have done something nice for God's creatures at the same time. -- User:Cecropia | User talk:Cecropia 20:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::: I disagree that it will encourage people to make trivial lists. What evidence do you have to back this up? -- User:Earl Andrew - User talk:Earl Andrew 21:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Cecropia said this would encourage people to make trivial ''edits'', not trivial ''lists''. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 07:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC) ::::It's called "herd mentality." We're seeing it on RfA right now with the massive number of votes for Bishonen, partly motivated by the desire to see a big number. People are often quoting edit numbers to justify (or sink) a nomination, yet numbers says nothing about the quality of the edits, or whether the editor is pumping up edits (intentionally or not) by failing to use the preview function. -- User:Cecropia | User talk:Cecropia 21:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::::: I confess I am failing to use the preview function while making small edits, for a simple reason: the database speed is pain in the ass. I am already wasting my time here instead of going and get myself a mug of beer in a good company, and I have to spend two minutes to fix a one-letter typo. Also, at times it is better save and be safe than to wait until wikipedia recovers from a crash. User:Mikkalai 22:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC) (I have no oinion on the table, per se, but) Another reason that I will often make multiple edits is that I intend to make edits in a number of sections of the article but want to edit section-by-section rather than to take on an entire huge article in one gulp. So each secction gets edited and saved as a discrete entity, leading to multiple edits all-in-a-row. And yes, sometimes (often?) one simply diesn't see the typo or obvious possible improvement until one pushes the "Save" button, no matter how many times one has pushed "Preview". And, finally, as someone pointed out above, the longer one waits before saving, the higher the odds of an edit conflict coming up or Wiki going down. User:Atlant 12:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Cross-post from talk:RfA == I'm cross posting this from a discussion on Requests for adminship, where it has been suggested that people are automatically nominated after a certain number of edits on Wikipedia: :''...I would recommend, however, that someone comes up with a list of non-admins who have produced high numbers of edits - it would give us some idea of who we are missing! Perhaps it would be worthwhile putting an asterisk after people's names on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits if they are admins, to make that search easier. In fact - I'll cross post this to W-talk:LoWbnoe, see what people think there...'' User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 01:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC) ::See User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins. -- user:Rick Block (user talk:Rick Block) 02:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC) :Excellent! Thanks! Do you update this regularly? User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 02:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC) ::No, I just created it. It was kind of a pain to do. I gather admins can run arbitrary SQL queries which would make it somewhat easier. -- user:Rick Block (user talk:Rick Block) 02:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC) :::There was a time when we could, but that was at least a year ago. Most people who create specialised reports Wikipedia:database download their own copy of the Wikipedia database and can run queries on it to their heart's content.-User:Gadfium 03:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC) == Any updates soon? == I know the stats behind this page haven't been updated since May 16 2005 (according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm]), but this data was last updated on April 27 2005. Any chance we could update this list to our most recent dataset? Also, any word on when the dataset will be updated? - User:Jredmond 21:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Check with User:ClockworkSoul, as he did the last two updates. --user:tomf688^{(User talk:Tomf688)} 19:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) ::Just a note - User:ClockworkSoul has made no edits since 21 May. I haven't tried to reach him by email. -- user:Rick Block (user talk:Rick Block) 19:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Here is a list of the 1000 Wikipedia:Wikipedians who have made the most edits to the wiki. It is generated by a script and is updated periodically. This is the list as of April 272005. ==Caveats!== The list gives an impression of who the heavy contributors are. However it should be taken with a pinch of salt - many of the edits of those high in the list will be spelling corrections, part of an edit war, correcting their own mistakes, or successively saving each small change where others would use the preview option. Someone who creates a number of long new pages or makes major additions might well occur much lower on the list. Remember too that many people edit without bothering to log in at all. Of course, we want as many people as possible to get involved, including those whose only edit may be to fix a simple typo. As of February 2005 Wikipedia gets more than 15,000 edits a day, 35% of which are made by people who are not on this list. Everyone's contributions are equally welcomed. Thank you! ==Notes== *The first list counts edits from the article namespace only. The second list counts edits from all Wikipedia:Namespace (including, for example, talk pages). *Each list also shows the number of edits for the last thirty days. *A list in unformatted form is available weekly [http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/csv/StatisticsUsers.csv here]. This list contains data for all users, including wikipedias in other languages. For a list of what each column means, see Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 2#Data in the CSV. *Users listed in gray are Wikipedia:Bots. User accounts marked ‡ include a mixture of bot and human edits. ==Main namespace edits==

User	Edits	Edits in last 30 days	Positional change in the last thirty days
User:Rambot	131518	0	–
User:D6	74670	1739	–
1 User:Bryan Derksen	47409	3853	↑ 3
User:Pearle	45893	2	↓ 1
2 User:Olivier	44523	855	–
3 User:Ram-Man‡	44212	1	↓ 2
4 User:WhisperToMe	42880	849	–
5 User:SimonP	42730	2263	↑ 1
6 User:Maveric149	40770	180	↓ 1
7 User:Michael Hardy	39684	1600	↑ 1
User:Template namespace initialisation script	39230	0	↓ 1
8 User:Everyking	33699	4732	↑ 4
User:CanisRufus	30570	2927	↑ 7
9 User:RedWolf	30564	277	↓ 2
10 User:KevinBot‡	30296	433	↓ 2
11 User:Seth Ilys	30119	2023	↑ 2
12 User:Ahoerstemeier	29672	1722	↑ 2
13 User:Charles Matthews	29416	2245	↑ 3
User:Robbot	29375	5	↓ 5
User:Conversion script	29098	0	↓ 5
User:Guanabot	28368	0	↓ 4
14 User:The Anome	27772	812	–
15 User:Dale Arnett	27297	1861	–
16 User:TUF-KAT	25980	1045	–
17 User:Patrick	25106	647	–
18 User:Jiang	24331	374	–
19 User:Docu	24223	893	↑ 1
20 User:Infrogmation	24135	307	↓ 1
21 User:Lord Emsworth	23632	1178	–
22 User:Morwen	22131	22	–
23 User:Grutness	21607	4875	↑ 15
24 User:Stan Shebs	21496	798	–
25 User:Jengod	21297	52	↓ 2
26 User:Mikkalai	21093	1963	–
27 User:Wik	19589	0	↓ 2
28 User:John Kenney	19383	1230	↑ 1
29 User:Sam Hocevar	19367	2043	↑ 6
30 User:Danny	19189	1319	–
31 User:Dysprosia	19157	125	↓ 4
32 User:Bearcat	19077	387	↓ 4
33 User:Neutrality	18406	1309	↑ 3
34 User:UtherSRG	18289	856	↓ 1
35 User:Joy	18244	1328	↑ 2
36 User:Timwi‡	18073	445	↓ 5
37 User:Bobblewik	17681	2416	↑ 13
38 User:Maximus Rex	17530	0	↓ 6
39 User:Hephaestos	17421	0	↓ 5
40 User:Deb	17342	765	↓ 1
41 User:Hadal	16845	1307	↑ 1
42 User:Postdlf	16611	1222	↑ 4
43 User:Angela	16509	92	↓ 3
44 User:AndyL	16184	689	↓ 1
45 User:Adam Bishop	16051	734	↑ 3
46 User:Curps	15777	1649	↑ 8
47 User:Andre Engels	15652	16	↓ 6
48 User:TakuyaMurata	15623	265	↓ 1
49 User:Jimfbleak	15556	128	↓ 4
50 User:Bkonrad	15547	261	↓ 1
51 User:Mic	15437	0	↓ 7
52 User:RickK	15246	704	↓ 1
53 User:Zoicon5	14793	1633	↑ 6
54 User:AxelBoldt	14455	96	↓ 2
55 User:Rmhermen	14250	362	–
56 User:RadicalBender	14134	0	↓ 3
57 User:Niteowlneils	14027	993	↑ 3
58 User:AntonioMartin	13852	412	↓ 1
59 User:SPUI	13799	2300	↑ 14
60 User:Reddi	13456	0	↓ 4
61 User:Hyacinth	13388	935	↑ 5
62 User:Fredrik	13310	367	–
63 User:Camembert	13259	91	↓ 5
64 User:Minesweeper	12978	31	↓ 3
65 User:Gtrmp	12957	170	↓ 2
66 User:IZAK	12867	873	↑ 1
67 User:Pumpie	12800	1437	↑ 7
68 User:Ed Poor	12790	121	↓ 4
69 User:Rlandmann	12673	168	↓ 4
70 User:Wetman	12482	705	↓ 1
71 User:Kingturtle	12352	661	–
72 User:Sfoskett	12160	1569	↑ 9
73 User:Montrealais	12071	94	↓ 5
74 User:MPF	12070	1072	↑ 2
75 User:David Newton	11721	2153	↑ 21
76 User:Aranel	11712	0	↓ 6
77 User:Xezbeth	11704	2612	↑ 27
78 User:Secretlondon	11655	0	↓ 6
79 User:Dryazan	11570	1553	↑ 9
80 User:Icairns	11548	1433	↑ 4
81 User:Jerryseinfeld	11448	573	↓ 3
82 User:Pcpcpc	11293	451	↓ 3
83 User:Kate	11171	0	↓ 8
84 User:Jmabel	11135	673	↓ 2
85 User:YUL89YYZ	11110	308	↓ 5
86 User:Earl Andrew	11106	1321	↑ 7
87 User:Heron	10991	115	↓ 10
88 User:Jfdwolff	10640	673	↑ 1
89 User:Gdr	10465	1370	↑ 14
90 User:OldakQuill	10339	264	↓ 5
91 User:Menchi	10289	31	↓ 8
92 User:TheCustomOfLife	10177	684	↑ 6
93 User:Decumanus	10160	229	↓ 3
94 User:Cantus	10128	1193	↑ 12
95 User:Tarquin	10110	47	↓ 8
96 User:Zoe	10073	0	↓ 10
97 User:Emperorbma	10073	224	↓ 6
98 User:Gerald Farinas	9991	1940	↑ 23
99 User:Warofdreams	9913	466	↑ 1
100 User:Paul A	9857	43	↓ 8
101 User:Wilfried Derksen	9845	1300	↑ 9
102 User:Rich Farmbrough	9815	1586	↑ 14
103 User:Koyaanis Qatsi	9738	3	↓ 9
104 User:Hemanshu	9659	170	↓ 5
105 User:Francs2000	9616	0	↓ 10
106 User:Gzornenplatz	9498	0	↓ 9
107 User:Wernher	9461	724	↑ 1
108 User:Karada	9448	386	↓ 3
109 User:Sannse	9421	22	↓ 8
110 User:Meelar	9411	933	↑ 2
111 User:MyRedDice	9241	0	↓ 9
112 User:Wiglaf	9204	1046	↑ 6
113 User:MisfitToys	9152	1385	↑ 16
114 User:Frecklefoot	9040	550	↓ 3
115 User:Rdsmith4	9004	717	–
116 User:Pigsonthewing	8826	0	↓ 9
117 User:Gadfium	8785	360	↓ 4
118 User:Duncharris	8764	896	↑ 9
119 User:JillandJack	8718	0	↓ 10
120 User:Adam Carr	8704	401	↓ 6
121 User:Tregoweth	8673	477	↓ 4
122 User:Lowellian	8524	1045	↑ 17
123 User:Cyrius	8494	605	↑ 3
124 User:Llywrch	8480	460	↓ 2
125 User:Lee M	8358	364	↓ 2
126 User:Mustafaa	8331	384	↓ 2
127 User:Egil	8285	552	↑ 3
128 User:Lexor	8247	132	↓ 9
129 User:Rick Block	8201	596	↑ 4
130 User:Hajor	8195	1059	↑ 22
131 User:Vaoverland	8148	1125	↑ 26
132 User:Ktsquare	8091	38	↓ 12
133 User:Quadell	8033	431	↑ 1
134 User:J.J.	7944	24	↓ 9
135 User:VeryVerily	7843	0	↓ 7
136 User:Urhixidur	7750	1116	↑ 39
137 User:Mulad	7736	75	↓ 5
138 User:RJHall	7687	548	↑ 13
139 User:172	7678	9	↓ 8
140 User:Rlquall	7652	1029	↑ 36
141 User:Ihcoyc	7601	209	–
142 User:Mintguy	7583	0	↓ 7
143 User:MusiCitizen	7582	485	↑ 10
144 User:Emax	7579	0	↓ 8
145 User:Moncrief	7571	901	↑ 28
146 User:Cburnett	7571	1628	↑ 50
147 User:Jayjg	7563	1473	↑ 44
148 User:Snoyes	7520	25	↓ 10
149 User:Poccil	7496	0	↓ 12
150 User:The Epopt	7493	45	↓ 10
151 User:Sarge Baldy	7477	333	↓ 1
152 User:Zanimum	7476	424	↑ 3
153 User:David Gerard	7455	264	↓ 6
154 User:Kaihsu	7387	391	↑ 5
155 User:DanielCD	7386	572	↑ 13
156 User:Derek Ross	7375	98	↓ 13
157 User:G-Man	7375	166	↓ 11
158 User:Sam Spade	7362	564	↑ 12
159 User:Tannin	7341	108	↓ 15
160 User:Gsl	7311	467	↑ 7
161 User:DO'Neil	7294	650	↑ 13
162 User:Pcb21	7291	212	↓ 8
163 User:Keith Edkins	7287	8	↓ 21
164 User:Matt Crypto	7286	356	↓ 4
165 User:Smallweed	7272	125	↓ 16
166 User:KF	7269	262	↓ 8
167 User:Stevertigo	7265	1396	↑ 34
168 User:Zigger	7249	347	↓ 5
169 User:Chris 73	7247	22	↓ 24
170 User:Jonel	7195	394	↓ 1
171 User:Anthony DiPierro	7183	0	↓ 23
172 User:Raul654	7125	225	↓ 7
173 User:Guanaco	7061	9	↓ 17
174 User:SD6-Agent	7060	147	↓ 13
175 User:LouI	6959	48	↓ 13
176 User:MakeRocketGoNow	6948	745	↑ 11
177 User:DMG413	6931	30	↓ 13
178 User:Evercat	6911	35	↓ 12
179 User:Roadrunner	6904	158	↓ 7
180 User:Gilgamesh	6877	122	↓ 9
181 User:Kchishol1970	6822	445	↑ 2
182 User:Bogdangiusca	6820	510	↑ 2
183 User:R. fiend	6729	163	↓ 5
184 User:Tagishsimon	6684	656	↑ 9
185 User:Slambo	6633	632	↑ 10
186 User:Steinsky	6612	157	↓ 6
187 User:Khaosworks	6606	1465	↑ 57
188 User:Jeronimo	6593	0	↓ 11
189 User:Reubenbarton	6547	30	↓ 10
190 User:LGagnon	6534	328	↓ 4
191 User:N328KF	6451	55	↓ 9
192 User:AlistairMcMillan	6445	839	↑ 21
193 User:Fonzy	6398	0	↓ 12
194 User:Delirium	6372	255	↓ 5
195 User:David.Monniaux	6367	524	↑ 9
196 User:Mike Garcia	6357	1166	↑ 44
197 User:Saga City	6356	1229	↑ 48
198 User:DavidLevinson	6329	221	↓ 8
199 User:Magnus Manske	6263	15	↓ 14
200 User:Mirv	6228	339	↓ 2
201 User:Oberiko	6213	327	↓ 2
202 User:Maury Markowitz	6209	173	↓ 10
203 User:Lir	6149	0	↓ 15
204 User:Jerzy	6140	463	↑ 5
205 User:Halibutt	6114	260	↓ 2
206 User:Viajero	6113	527	↑ 12
207 User:DJ Clayworth	6109	352	↓ 1
208 User:Darwinek	6079	2568	↑ 181
209 User:Gamaliel	6077	393	↓ 1
210 User:Bobo192	6073	3363	↑ 304
211 User:Gabbe	6054	464	↑ 6
212 User:Man vyi	6047	1212	↑ 51
213 User:Jdforrester	6036	432	↑ 1
214 User:Edcolins	6027	305	↓ 7
215 User:Boothy443	6022	920	↑ 34
216 User:Someone else	6007	0	↓ 22
217 User:Dcoetzee	5971	714	↑ 17
218 User:Davidcannon	5950	680	↑ 15
219 User:Elf	5920	369	↑ 2
220 User:Wmahan	5918	515	↑ 9
221 User:Eloquence	5908	27	↓ 21
222 User:Abigail-II	5896	0	↓ 25
223 User:XJamRastafire	5895	61	↓ 18
224 User:Eequor	5872	255	↓ 12
225 User:Ta bu shi da yu	5865	10	↓ 23
226 User:CJCurrie	5730	722	↑ 27
227 User:Rbrwr	5725	127	↓ 11
228 User:Liftarn	5713	587	↑ 18
229 User:Merovingian	5703	236	↓ 6
230 User:Morven	5699	126	↓ 11
231 User:Muriel Gottrop	5688	66	↓ 20
232 User:Looxix	5661	0	↓ 22
233 User:Radiojon	5657	227	↓ 5
234 User:Timrollpickering	5620	93	↓ 12
235 User:Arwel Parry	5615	333	↓ 3
236 User:Dbachmann	5609	389	↑ 1
237 User:Eclecticology	5608	7	↓ 22
238 User:Antandrus	5597	431	↑ 3
239 User:JoJan	5587	184	↓ 9
240 User:Fuzheado	5583	467	↑ 7
241 User:Ceyockey	5570	1442	↑ 78
242 User:Ortolan88	5564	0	↓ 22
243 User:Leonard G.	5488	251	↓ 8
244 User:Ellmist	5473	40	↓ 17
245 User:Jumbuck	5461	0	↓ 21
246 User:Seglea	5459	16	↓ 20
247 User:Topbanana	5457	0	↓ 22
248 User:Viriditas	5440	740	↑ 27
249 User:Vardion	5432	284	↓ 6
250 User:Ran	5417	549	↑ 11
251 User:Mrsteviec	5416	1889	↑ 135
252 User:Golbez	5378	177	↓ 13
253 User:RK	5375	373	↑ 1
254 User:Wwoods	5358	557	↑ 11
255 User:PedanticallySpeaking	5357	1252	↑ 65
256 User:Mydogategodshat	5336	4	↓ 25
257 User:Oleg Alexandrov	5336	2405	↑ 208
258 User:Jyril	5257	1482	↑ 96
259 User:Sjc	5235	5	↓ 23
260 User:The Singing Badger	5222	242	↓ 5
261 User:Itai	5216	65	↓ 19
262 User:Vicki Rosenzweig	5211	4	↓ 24
263 User:Gentgeen	5131	380	↑ 9
264 User:Greyengine5	5116	0	↓ 16
265 User:BRG	5112	35	↓ 15
266 User:PMA	5108	437	↑ 15
267 User:GreatWhiteNortherner	5096	119	↓ 10
268 User:Timc	5077	257	↓ 4
269 User:Josh Grosse	5055	18	↓ 18
270 User:Catbar	5051	99	↓ 12
271 User:Marshman	5029	181	↓ 9
272 User:Dori	5027	0	↓ 20
273 User:ChrisO	5016	228	↓ 7
274 User:Quercusrobur	4997	85	↓ 14
275 User:Zundark	4995	16	↓ 19
276 User:Tom Radulovich	4988	319	↑ 7
277 User:Dpbsmith	4980	435	↑ 14
278 User:23skidoo	4974	429	↑ 14
279 User:Rossrs	4960	37	↓ 20
280 User:Mwng	4943	167	↓ 12
281 User:Nunh-huh	4931	265	↑ 3
282 User:Grm wnr	4918	3903	↑ 956
283 User:Evil saltine	4915	151	↓ 12
284 User:Ambi	4913	225	↓ 7
285 User:Big iron	4905	201	↓ 11
286 User:Glenn	4889	121	↓ 17
287 User:Jtdirl	4873	433	↑ 8
288 User:Ugen64	4820	233	↑ 1
289 User:Chris j wood	4818	454	↑ 12
290 User:Ellywa	4817	1171	↑ 82
291 User:Naddy	4816	84	↓ 18
292 User:Phil Boswell	4806	393	↑ 6
293 User:Stevietheman	4802	734	↑ 32
294 User:Mel Etitis	4799	2476	↑ 308
295 User:Wapcaplet	4792	15	↓ 28
296 User:Secfan	4785	950	↑ 49
297 User:Lucky 6.9	4774	523	↑ 13
298 User:Riddley	4769	3	↓ 28
299 User:Djinn112	4741	45	↓ 23
300 User:Joseph Dwayne	4735	56	↓ 21
301 User:Bumm13	4725	63	↓ 16
302 User:Ausir	4724	36	↓ 24
303 User:JohnOwens	4712	34	↓ 23
304 User:Schneelocke	4711	52	↓ 18
305 User:Edward	4711	192	↓ 12
306 User:K1Bond007	4692	708	↑ 23
307 User:Sortior	4671	0	↓ 25
308 User:Tedius Zanarukando	4662	258	↓ 9
309 User:Isis	4650	0	↓ 22
310 User:Mrwojo	4619	477	↑ 8
311 User:Renata	4588	0	↓ 23
312 User:Historian	4587	421	↑ 2
313 User:Tucci528	4576	0	↓ 23
314 User:Ted Wilkes	4574	1968	↑ 219
315 User:Sewing	4557	141	↓ 18
316 User:Alai	4553	1601	↑ 146
317 User:Remuel	4549	613	↑ 16
318 User:Mzajac	4548	968	↑ 62
319 User:GRAHAMUK	4530	147	↓ 19
320 User:Willmcw	4530	764	↑ 36
321 User:Acsenray	4517	7	↓ 27
322 User:Nixdorf	4502	187	↓ 17
323 User:Romanm	4500	193	↓ 17
324 User:Ericd	4491	276	↓ 13
325 User:Sietse Snel	4491	518	↑ 5
326 User:Petaholmes	4482	1104	↑ 80
327 User:Mtiedemann	4476	471	–
328 User:Henrygb	4467	629	↑ 15
329 User:Revth	4457	40	↓ 33
330 User:Hike395	4443	250	↓ 18
331 User:Diberri	4432	146	↓ 23
332 User:Nicknack009	4427	483	–
333 User:Neilc	4413	136	↓ 24
334 User:CatherineMunro	4384	46	↓ 32
335 User:Bensaccount	4384	227	↓ 18
336 User:Tobias Conradi	4383	760	↑ 39
337 User:Violetriga	4360	568	↑ 15
338 User:B Touch	4354	26	↓ 35
339 User:Hooperbloob	4348	901	↑ 53
340 User:Lupin	4340	1411	↑ 126
341 User:Fabiform	4327	8	↓ 37
342 User:Arpingstone	4306	148	↓ 26
343 User:Sverdrup	4306	15	↓ 36
344 User:Lupo	4301	206	↓ 23
345 User:Ish ishwar	4301	1893	↑ 237
346 User:Clarkk	4281	599	↑ 18
347 User:Ed g2s	4274	340	↓ 13
348 User:Trilobite	4270	458	↑ 1
349 User:Piotrus	4268	621	↑ 22
350 User:Marine 69-71	4238	415	↓ 3
351 User:Husnock	4236	353	↓ 14
352 User:Squash	4214	53	↓ 37
User:Nobot	4194	24	↓ 40
353 User:Stepp-Wulf	4178	412	↑ 1
354 User:Marcus2	4159	114	↓ 29
355 User:Lukobe	4135	44	↓ 34
356 User:Fuelbottle	4098	25	↓ 33
357 User:PierreAbbat	4075	0	↓ 35
358 User:Thue	4074	260	↓ 11
359 User:Nikai	4070	673	↑ 42
360 User:ContiE	4044	184	↓ 22
361 User:Grendelkhan	4034	205	↓ 16
362 User:Ricky81682	4033	758	↑ 58
363 User:PFHLai	4029	367	↑ 2
364 User:Philip Baird Shearer	4020	380	↑ 9
365 User:Zoney	4018	53	↓ 35
366 User:Saforrest	4005	95	↓ 31
367 User:Susvolans	4003	360	↑ 5
368 User:Fvw	4000	0	↓ 41
369 User:Kevin Rector	3998	583	↑ 28
370 User:Bluemoose	3974	871	↑ 69
371 User:Ellsworth	3972	616	↑ 36
372 User:Minghong	3966	1273	↑ 147
373 User:DavidWBrooks	3963	400	↑ 9
374 User:Kpjas	3938	62	↓ 37
375 User:Gene Nygaard	3938	1100	↑ 118
376 User:Norm	3926	0	↓ 42
377 User:TheParanoidOne	3919	3918	↑ 51514
378 User:SimonMayer	3898	61	↓ 35
379 User:Rje	3897	647	↑ 44
380 User:Chuq	3894	37	↓ 41
381 User:Darkcore	3892	239	↓ 13
382 User:Jinian	3887	527	↑ 24
383