On 6/8/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect that the problem lies with us. We are failing to say "go away, we're not interested" to those who want to abuse Wikipedia to conduct their social experiments.
Watching this interchange, I was wondering exactly how valid the claim was that (for example) the signature refactoring complaintants were "social Wikipedians" who might fall under the "go away" clause. On the basis that data is better than assertion, I went out and used Interiot's tool to get stats on the seven accounts listed in the original RfC complaint.
Distribution, by percent mainspace edits: (total/%(main+main talk) -------- 4512/52% 7474/51% 3335/50% 1603/50% 303/23% 6790/22% 7447/6%
So we have four solid, high count productive contributors, a newbie, a borderline case with high volume posts (the complaintant), and one user who is, fairly, using it socially (6%? 7000+ edits? Wow, that suprised me).
I'm not going to dump all the source details to the list, but if you're curious, User:Georgewilliamherbert/temp_rfccounts