Requests for comment/X!'s Edit Counter

The following request for comments is closed. Opt-in will remain in effect globally. The English Wikipedia has established a local consensus to remove the opt completely and will go into effect early August. Any editor is free to launch a local RfC with these three options and notify me of the discussion if they would like to have a different opt setup for their home wiki. As for the discussion to split the opt, there wasn't enough discussion for me to consider it.—cyberpower ChatHello! 07:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Currently, any editor must opt-in to allow other editors to see additional statistics in X!'s edit counter (for that editor). These additional statistics are

  • (a) top namespace edits and
  • (b) monthly edit statistics.

This opt-in was set up because of a law in Germany, where the toolserver is located. Since we are migrating everything from the toolserver to Wikimedia's labs (in the U.S.), this law isn't relevant anymore. There are editors who want to see the monthly stats and top namespace edits for everyone, not just for editors who have opted in.

The question is should we allow this (by disabling opt-in) or whether we should let users still have control over what can be seen in the edit counter (by keeping opt-in). A third option is to allow users to opt-out; if they don't, then all other editors could see their full statistics.

I feel the community should answer this question before taking any initative on this. This discussion has been raised on the English Wikipedia and the outcome is leaning towards removing opt-in requirement. Should the detailed edit counter remain as an opt-in or should it be an opt-out or not opt-able at all?—cyberpower ChatHello! 02:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record
This isn't referring to the toolserver version. The edit counter is being setup on Wikimedia labs. The change will apply to that.

Note also that all of the information that is used by these tools is publicly available and can be used by any person to create an identical tool on another non-WMF server, on which there would be no opt-in or opt-out.

For reference
This is an opted in result, this a not opted-in result. Snowolf How can I help? 14:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep opt-in

  1. It makes a difference whether detailed edit statistics can be theoretically derived from the available data or if they are easily presented without effort including graphs that display working periods. These graphs can reveal a lot about an editor and many editors would not feel comfortable with that. It could even have the consequence that editors are leaving. At the end, this is not just a legal question but also a question about what is important, i.e. to move forward to fulfill the misson of the WMF projects or to turn WMF into something like some other well known Internet sites that recklessly make accumulated user data available to third parties. The WMF takes a grand stand in regard to PRISM which states: Freedom of speech and access to information are core Wikimedia values. These values can be compromised by surveillance: editors and readers understandably are less willing to write and inform themselves as honestly and freely. Put simply, "rights of privacy are necessary for intellectual freedom." Please keep these core values alive and heed them. This was an opt-in for very good reasons, not just legal ones. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nach den Erfahrungen mit US-Amerikanischen Behörden und dem fehlenden Respekt vor der Privatsphäre der Menschen sollte jegliche Weitergabe von Informationen auf Freiwilligkeit beruhen. --ST 07:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While the information is all public it is still very difficult to gather easily for the normal person and can give an awful ot away about a person. It is good practice to give someone the option to show that. I'M .... 'kinda' ok with an opt out but would prefer an opt-in. Jamesofur (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There is no need for having detailed edit statistics. But, if someone want these information about himselfe or herselfe, he or she should say so. --Goldzahn (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NNW (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Keep opt-in. - Yes, the data is already available. But there is indeed a difference between that and analysis of the data supported by WikiMedia. Plus, people are too interested in this often (but not always) trivial data. See the numerous edit counters. Garion96 (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Kolossos (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Heiko (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Orci (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Polarlys (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Millbart (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I see no reason to abandon opt-in and agree with AFBorchert's statement above.[reply]
  13. --Ephraim33 (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Atamari (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Bubo 10:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. There are people who take these statistics and try to turn them against you to fuel their personal attacks, it's a shame but it's like that. No need to make it easier for them. Plus, it's a big difference if somebody is spying on you in secret or if your profile is on open display for everybody. -- HvW (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. We should respect those contributors who do not wish to reveal too much information about themselves. Per AFBorchert above, it does make a difference whether information can be theoretically derived or whether information is readily analyzed in detail and publicly presented. --UV (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --PigeonIP (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I am with all previous editors.[reply]
  19. Like #7 --Morten Haan (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Steef 389 12:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Varina (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC) like AFBorchert[reply]
  23. XenonX3 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --PerfektesChaos (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a legitimated interest to know whether a user is experienced or newcomer, and focussing on main space like encyclopedic articles, or on project issues, talk, files or template programming.
    • It is none of any users business at which time of the day someone is working, in which month higher or lower efforts occur. Is he unemployed? Is he ill, cannot sleep? Easy to be misused for judgement over users, who are human beings.
    • If you want to get an impression what an unknown user is dealing with, take a glance on recent 500 contributions and retrieve a manual glimpse on edit summaries, topics, minor edits, changes with thousands of bytes, reverts, recently inactive? It is okay to get such a feeling if you are going to elect a user, but you don’t need a detailed statistical analysis.
    • It is unjustified nosiness to achieve on simple click an exhaustive personal dissection, and tools provided by wmflabs shall not support snoopery.
    • Supporters of dropping opt-in haven’t been able yet to tell us any single reason for which good purpose they need such analysis of other peoples behaviour. With regard to contents and POV a monthly schedule and (as the tool has been able a couple of years ago) evaluation by time of the day gives no insight at all.
  25. AFBorchert has exactly the same stance on this issue as i have. --Gnu1742 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)#:[reply]
  26. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. or an opt-out option. --Túrelio (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Raymond (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Per AFBorchert[reply]
  29. nicht verboten, heißt noch lange nicht, dass es gut ist ...Sicherlich Post 14:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  30. Elvaube (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. per AFBorchert. --Sitic (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. --Dritte von links (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --El bes (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Too much personal data would be available to anymone.[reply]
  34. --Mauerquadrant (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Per AFBorchert.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Per AFBorchert -- Sozi (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Density (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Müdigkeit (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC) per AFBorchert.[reply]
  39. Agreee wholeheartedly with the excellent first comment by AFBorchert. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. --Radiohörer (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Some User should have his privacy. Who want to provide his complete statistics to everyone can set the opt-in, all others don't need to set it. This method there is since many years so and should be continued. An opt-out will make many questions and upsets by users, which strictly look to their privacy and won't give any information for someone. This is my opinion to this topic.[reply]
  41. Working on wiki is not a private area. --Mario7 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment suggests you have voted in the wrong section? the wub "?!" 11:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. "Others do it anyway" is a poor reason to do it as well. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I see no reason to abandon opt-in and agree with AFBorchert's statement above. --Neozoon (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Per AFBorchert FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Isderion (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I think we should keep the opt-in, & continue to give Users the security, freedom and choice of opting-in to display their stats. And I like the clear & concise presentation of X!'s Edit Counter. JudyCS (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I prefer this option because it gives me the freedom to choose, I don't find out sometime 3 years after creating an account that "Oh I didn't know I had the option to opt out". Also by opting in I am also confirming this is what I want to do and there is no opportunity for me to say "hey I didn't want to do that". Furthermore, I like the way it is set up now and the way it looks and if you change things then this might not be the case. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to "vote" Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. All editors should have the option to opt-in or out. Each one should decide on its level of privacy.--Mariordo (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Allowing editors to opt-in is a simple matter of choice, a choice everyone should be allowed to exercise. 04:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No IPs please.—cyberpower ChatHello! 04:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. --Oriciu (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. It comes down to a simple matter of choice, a choice editors should always be free to make (or not to make). Coinmanj (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. ...Aurora... (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Syrcro (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. --Robby (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. per AFBorchert --Byrial (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. FoBe (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. 9xl (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Spischot (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Ankry (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. --MariaHausB (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. there are lots of arguments to keep and I prefer the volunteers feel confortable with their work and privacy topics -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. per AFBorchert --Tobias talk · contrib 07:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Regarding privacy. User contributions and page history are enough. --C5st4wr6ch (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. --Jbergner (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. ----Chelin (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. MADe (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --Daniel749 talk 08:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --►Cekli829 08:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Annabel (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. --BBKurt (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC) I like the way the information is presented. Should be kept.[reply]
  71. --Calak (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. --Elop (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. --Gerbil (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Keep opt-in. Yes, in theory anyone can write such a tool, but in practice the situation is different. I believe WMF need not provide to much aggregated data about users unless they explicitly agree to present it to everyone. --Lanhiaze (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Of course, the data can be modeled freely and it ought to. However, there is a qualitativ difference between having the data available as such and proactively digging into it for controversial purposes as a community issue. The options in question - as I recall from my conversations with De&En.WP, Commons, and WMDE folks at the time (and looking at the discussion here reconfirms the pattern) - are controversial not only as such in the mode in question but even more so due to their expanded reach through being hosted by us compared to external sites offering to undertake the same analysis. German vs. US law doesn't come into it at this stage; how we spell out "free" when it comes to our own public user logs in ways we as a community feel is appropriate to foster our shared goal is the sole relevant question for this proceding. Having diverse views on that is neither unlawful nor absurd. All things considerend, I'm with James (#4.).[reply]
  76. Ionutzmovie (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. I would prefer we keep the opt-in. This data is public and can be publicly viewed, but there is a philosophical difference between that and Wikimedia effectively saying "and here is where we profile and study our contributors' behaviour and habits in a public forum", which I don't think is entirely appropriate given our other strong emphasis on user privacy. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Danapit (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. -jkb- 10:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC) keep absolutely! Wikipedia is Wikipedia and not the World of Orwel, although some users might like it, learnde unfortunately at Google[reply]
  80. privacy and data protection first --Martina Nolte (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --Grueslayer (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Karmela (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. --Kuebi (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. --M/ (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. VítoR™ · (D) 11:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC). Per comments above.[reply]
  86. Snipre (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Maradjon így! --Ákos9702 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. It is bad enough that the Wikipedia database stores unnecessary information such as the exact time of an edit for years (instead of removing such unnecessary bits of information after a couple of weeks). Strong keep. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Liesel (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Ansonsten werde ich mich gezwungen sehen, wechselnde Arbeitsaccounts zu nutzen um die Erstellung eines Autorenprofiles zu erschweren[reply]
  90. I love this tool, but keeping as opt-in is just the morally correct thing to do, in my opinion. 78.26 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Nothing ti hide, if somebody wont's to spy, there is a lot of different tools and ways to do it.--Laslovarga (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Fully agree to AFBorchert, AndreasPraefcke and Liesel --Bjs (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. I agree with AFBorchert --Shisha-Tom, 15:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Seems only sensible. I would agree with AFBorchert - I'd even say it's not mainly a legal question; if it's legally allowed to have the tool without opt-in, this doesn't mean that we have to do this if many editors feel uncomfortable with it.[reply]
  96. Came here with the intention to vote for opt-out, but changed my mind due to the convincing arguments of PerfektesChaos (#24). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jossi2 (talk) [1]
  97. Basvb (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC) - or at least opt-out[reply]
  98. Danilo.mac talk 17:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Bzh-99 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. --Xavier Combelle (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. -- --Zananiri (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. While I are opted-in, not anyone should be without be asked. We shouldn't set a border for new wiki-participants while showing them "we know everything of you when you edit here". --Quedel (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. --Geitost diskusjon 19:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC) unbedingt behalten!: The tool shouldn’t have moved to labs (and the toolserver should be kept) then there would never have been this discussion. Is this the real reason, why a toolserver isn’t wanted by the foundation anymore that the privacy of users and their data shall not be respected anymore??? Ich möchte nicht derartige genaue Daten über mich öffentlich verfügbar im Netz wissen, die von irgendwem missbraucht werden können. Ansonsten wie AFBorchert, Perfektes Chaos, HvW, Liesel, Sicherlich, El bes, Jan eissfeldt, -jkb-, Quedel und andere. I must say that I’m very astonished about this proposal and can’t understand this. Is there really such a big ocean between the cultures? Jeder Benutzer sollte ausschließlich selbst bestimmen können, ob er*sie derartige genaue Datensammlungen über sich im Netz verfügbar haben möchte oder nicht. Das ist mit Opt-out allein nicht möglich. – Nachtrag bzw. ergänzender Vorschlag: Was ich nicht an dem Opt-in verstehe: Warum gibt es eigentlich keine Möglichkeit, nur Monatsstatistiken einzuschalten, aber nicht die aggregierten Daten darüber, welche Seiten in welchen Namensräumen man am meisten bearbeitet hat? But why isn’t there an option to be able to opt-in just the monthly statistics without the aggregated data about the most edited pages in the different namespaces? This could be useful for admin elections where users are being asked to opt-in the statistics, but the only interest is in the monthly data, not in the edited pages which should be of no interest for such cases. And why isn’t here in this RFC even such an option for splitting the opt-in for monthly data and most edited pages? I really missed such an option in the past not only once.[reply]
  104. DerHexer (Talk) 19:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Mathonius (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC). I prefer that users retain their control over this. I prefer freedom of choice in this case.[reply]
  106. --თოგო (D) 21:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC) We shouldn't give trolls tools to stalk users more easily, in the first place. If such tools exist, they need to be opt-in in any way.[reply]
  107. Wutsje (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC) - Showing aggregated data by default is fine with me, but imo users should have the freedom to choose whether their monthly edit stats are disclosed or not, so I'm very strongly in favour of keeping the opt-in option. It's a simple matter of privacy: users must have the possibility to protect their own, because nobody else will.[reply]
  108. --Anka Friedrich (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Der Zugang zu entsprechenden Daten bei Labs sollte ebenfalls beschränkt sein, so dass derartige Auswertungen auch jenseits dieses Tools nicht bzw. nicht frei möglich sind.[reply]
  109. --Rosenzweig (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. --Diwas (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Niels (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC) don't make it too easy to use possibly privacy-infringing data (a user's edit pattern can reveal a lot) - especially with the US's not too spotless record on privacy infringement as of late.[reply]
  112. --Mogelzahn (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Datenschutz ist ein Wert an sich. Und im Übrigen: Auch Facebook, Google und Microsoft haben sich schon die Zähne an Thilo Weichert ausgebissen. Das deutsche Datenschutzrecht gilt auch auf Wikilabs, solange es Bewohner der Bundesrepublik Deutschland betrifft. --Mogelzahn (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. --Simeondahl (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. -- Maclemo (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Deliberately using what is publicly available is neither necessarily wise, nor legitimate, nor legal. Everyone could buy a gun or a knife or a covert listening device and shoot or stab someone or plant the device to a public phone with a chance for wikipedia:wiretapping or eavesdropping, none of which is legal unless done by the police or domestic government agents. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Actually I cannot see any advantage at all in having those kind of statistics. Do not want to have anybody's wikimedia projects activity to be openly displayed. Catfisheye (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. The fact that some data is public but scattered, is one thing, collecting and organizing the data is something quite different, that is (good part of) the work of Intelligence agencies. WP/WMF is not a espionage / intelligence agency, I'd say. - Nabla (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. The WMF should not participate in data mining against the users' will or without their knowledge, so making it opt-in makes perfect sense to me. If people want to snoop on someone against his will or without his knowledge, they can host their snooping tools somewhere else. --Cgtdk (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Whisternefet (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. --Cvf-ps (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC), see PerfektesChaos (#24)[reply]
  121. voor behoud van de opt-in optie Balko (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. It's not hurting anything, so why not? IMO there ought to be an opt-in for the edit counter as a whole. TortoiseWrath (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Agree, per first comment. Just because the data are available doesn't mean we need to make it easy. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Keep opt-in per first comment. Zhaofeng Li (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Keep it. --Partynia (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Wenngleich ich das Opt-in genutzt habe denke ich dass wir die Entscheidung darüber dem einzelnen Nutzer lassen sollten. LG --AleXXw (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. --Olei (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. --Tom Jac (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. --Zollernalb (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. --Alupus (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC) per AFBorchert und Steschke[reply]
  132. --Schreiber (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. --Zinnmann (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Support --CherryX (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Don't change policy pretexting some server migration. If some peoples use it, let them free to use it. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 12:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. --HHill (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. FelixReimann (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Per AFBorchert and PerfektesChaos. We should always have a right to choose which option we prefer and not have it imposed on us. --Sofffie7 (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. --Lutheraner (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. --Momotaro (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. --Wetterwolke (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. NH 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Per Cgtdk above (#118)[reply]
  143. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. --Berita (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Alice Wiegand (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) per AFBorchert and Andrew Gray (#1, #77)[reply]
  146. Per AFBorchert (cmt.#1), Garion96 (cmt.#7) & PerfektesChaos (cmt.#24) 24. --JayJasper (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  147. -- Meister-Lampe (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Per AFBorchert[reply]
  148. I'm in favor of keeping the opt-in option as opposed to the other options. Dainomite (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Keep it as is. Otherwise it makes too much information / dissection too easily available / too easy to do. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  150. absolutely. -- Theoprakt (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  151. --Zache (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Keep the opt-in format - It is useful when considering candidates at RfA where their choice to opt-in or remain opted-out is a useful evaluation criterion. John Cline (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  153. --HW1950 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  154. --An-d (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  155. --Asio otus (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  156. per AFBorchert --Knopfkind (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  157. no good reason to deprive this info from those who want to see it. Goethean (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  158. --Toter Alter Mann (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC) No need to upset a huge number of editors for no apparent reason[reply]
  159. --Jcornelius (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Support by AFBorchert and Millbart. Below, many other users argued with more transparency. This argument failes here: WP is very transparent, all contributions of any user, all modifications of all articles and so on are public. But aggregates of certain data may be harmful to some authors, i.e. the editing time. --Sputniktilt (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support Support We don't want private data leaking out. I've never used the opt-in, so I don't know why it needs to be shown. Springyboy (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  162. The people who will find default tracking of monthly contribs most useful are a certain kind of user on enwiki who insists that a few hundred edits a month, every month, is the only acceptable contribution pattern and that anything else is deviant if not treasonous. I've seen users torn apart in the RFA for having contribution patterns that don't match this, and thus have no desire to see in making my monthly pattern easily accessible to those users. (I have no intention of seeking the mop on enwiki, but I'm worried that the enwiki attitude might spread to other projects, or to other aspects of enwiki.) —Quintucket (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  163. --Kellerkind (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  164. --Sakra (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Support A significant proportion of editors of some topics appear to be children. We need to promote a safe enovironment for them. 00:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No IPs Please.
  165. -- smial (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  166. --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  167. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  168. No interest in opting in, either. The stats are readily available for anyone willing to click "history". For others, it makes it far too easy to see. Each time I have run for Admin I have provided the equivalent stats for that purpose, and would prefer to keep it that way. --Apteva (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Just because everybody technically can sniff out this data, it doesn't mean, that we have to support this bad habit on "our own" servers. I don't need a Stasi-pedia for hobby profilers. --Alexrk2 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  170. --Blech (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Dr.cueppers (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  172. - Wesley Mouse (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  173. I have not learned why anyone would be interested in this data. I have never investigated any editor, and I don't see why anyone else would do so (excepting, perhaps, persistent vandals). It's bad enough that the U.S. government spies (illegally) on us. I edit Wikipedia as a hobby: no one pays me to do all the research that I do. If Wikipedia's staff decides that, like the U.S. gov't, they want to spy on us, then the heck with Wikipedia. I have other things that I could do with my time than satisfy someone's prurient interests. M.Y.O.B. If you have so much spare time to snoop on your fellow editors, get a real job. Cwkmail (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  174.  @xqt 08:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  175. I don't have a problem with that data being shown (I've opted in, afair) but I would like to have the choice. --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  176. --Nolispanmo (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  177. - Jethwarp (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  178. --Tulumino (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  179. --Pretobras (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  180. - Why fix what's not broken? Wiki ian 03:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  181. - It's about the "choice". Please don't eliminate that. Artoasis (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Why change the conditions after the fact? (Wikipedia is not supposed to be Facebook!) - Brya (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  183. + Botulph (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  184. I know all of the info is already publicly available, but it would require some digging (or third party programs that I daresay only a small percentage of more-active Wikipedians are familiar with). I have no problem with my edits being counted, but I'd rather not have someone be able to see my most edited pages or my most active months at a single glance. I think the opt-in makes sense for those interested in these statistics; no need to apply it to all editors. --MattMauler (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Per MattMauler. Snooping should remain a chore; it shouldn't be as simple as visiting a single webpage. Do your own dirty work instead of forcing the WMF to do it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Analysis of other people activities may well lead to compromising their privacy. If the user does not consent to it, such analysis should only be performed with good reasons. -- Dalba 8 Tir 1392/ 06:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  187. --Mazbln (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  188. --Mr Soika (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  189. The Banner (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Not everybody needs to know all me details.[reply]
  190. Maasje (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Dqfn13 (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Ik vind het niet erg als mensen kunnen zien wat ik doe, ben toch anoniem, maar ik vind het wel erg als mensen bewerkers met elkaar gaan vergelijken. Wikipedia is geen wedstrijd maar een encyclopedie in wording, daar hoort informatie geplaatst te worden en er hoort dus geen bewerkingswedstrijd te staan of mogelijk gemaakt te worden.[reply]
  192. --Atlasowa (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Both the monthly statistics and top namespace editors could be used for abusive purposes (eg, to track what times of the year people are most active and to make inferences about their personal interests - which could be very personal - age, gender and location), and there should be a general presumption to privacy anyway. Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  194. --ONAR (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  195. --Thgoiter (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  196. -- 32X (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Just because one could use the data for exessive user tracking doesn't mean everyone should be able to stalk everyone.[reply]
  197. Signalizing (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Hushpuckena (talk) Strongly prefer to keep opt-in.
  199. --John123521 (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  200. --Uwe Gille (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  201. --Cú Faoil (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Considering that our German colleagues do not usually have the right to use their work computers for editing Wikipedia (even during breaks), and considering that doing so can be legally used as a reason for termination, the possibility of opt-in is extremely valuable to have for them and should therefore be kept.[reply]
  202. --THWZ (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  203. --Sti (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  204. --Betateschter (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  205. --- +1 MattMauler, +1 Andrew Gray, +1 Brya. It is to our advantage to retain editors who are low key people not given to self promotion and over-sharing of personal info. Djembayz (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Backwards compatibility is always desirable, here too. Antilope (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Jr8825 (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  208. TMg 09:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  209. --Horgner (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Simplicius (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC) What are we voting about? If someone does not want an aggregation of personal data it will have to be respected.[reply]
  211. --Amberg (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Keep opt-in, include the possibility of splitting it between the two statistics as suggested under 4.1[reply]
  212. Deadstar Deadstar (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  213. — Racconish Tk 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  214. --Matthäus Wander (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  215. --Emergency doc (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  216. --I have two reasons to support keeping the opt-in. First, it turns out that opting-in does enable people to see all the pages I've edited, in a consolidated list. I don't really think my web history is anyone's business but my own. Second, wouldn't it be less burdensome on the Toolserver and on Wikimedia in general? Wouldn't it cost less money & resources to keep the opt-in system? Why strain the system by making it do more that it doesn't have to do that some people don't want it to do anyway? On the other hand I am fine with an opt-out, but I at least want some kind of kill switch. LazyBastardGuy 20:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know people can already see what I've been up to by looking at my Contributions, but Toolserver plans to make this way too easy for nosy people. It's not like I don't look at others' contributions, but in general I don't look very far - I usually only use it, say, to see if I should notify them that something they made has been marked for deletion by me. If they haven't been around in a year, I don't see the point in trying to notify them. This isn't like that at all, what they're proposing here. LazyBastardGuy 20:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, this change won't apply to the Toolserver version (see the proposal above). It will only apply to the Wikimedia Labs one. The Toolserver is located in Germany/run by a German organisation (Wikimedia Deutschland), and Germany has strict laws about user profiling, etc. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think we should follow Germany's example in this case. Either way, regardless of who's hosting it or where, I don't want this to happen. LazyBastardGuy 05:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this German law an implementation of EEC's Data Protection Directive ? Doesn't FTC Fair Information Practice provide the same principles ? — Racconish Tk 09:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  217. I understand the lack of privacy but what purpose does easily viewing a person's most edited pages accomplish? If you go up for an RfA or are in another forum which may require it, the person can opt in.--NortyNort (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Too much information about users' editing patterns. What next, IP addresses? MrX (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Uncle Sam is reading anyway - move the servers to a safe country. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Supercarwaar (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Believe me, couunter's fine as it is. As soon as that really awesome admin a.k.a. X! left, there has been some problem or the other. Can't you all just let the edit counter and its features live? --Ankit Maity (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Counters may be accessible for some people with general credit, just like checkuser. In everyday use, it's used too much for cheap denunciation. "Some supercool people can do it anyway" may also a justifcation for extended profiling with propablility calculations for job, domicile et cetera et cetera … there's "no privat data", so there's no reason to threath the protection-worthy freedom of data mining, right? --Hæggis 02:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  223. --Kein Einstein (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  225. --Jarmihi (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  226. --DJ 10:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  227. --Carol.Christiansen (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  228. -Htm (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Data are raw facts/bits. Information is organized, processed data. It takes (sometimes substantial) effort to produce information out of data. Therefore, public data does not equal public information. I like being able to see my own edit information, and others' (once in a while), if they are ok with that. I know that this question does not address all the current ways that the information is produced, nor does it control/limit access as a whole. But the user option is still appropriate. It is enough that it is a significant matter of concern to many editors. Opt-out has always been flimsy window dressing for "no-opt"; opt-in is at least explicit. Let's not remove what allows some people to be more comfortable with making contributions. WP need not and should not adopt a laissez-faire attitude to editor data. "Laissez-faire" is not freedom, as a great many of us Americans still know, especially when our government insists otherwise. Evenssteven (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  230. While the data needed for these statistics can be accumulated from other public sources as well, I think there is a significant difference between leaving bits of data distributed all over the place or accumulating the data in a single place, easily accessible to anyone for further interpretation, right or wrong. Giving users no choice or only offering an opt-out option is not user-friendly, as casual editors will likely never learn about such an option. Therefore, opt-in is the only responsible way to go. If this would be forced on me, my consequence would be to stop contributing to this project, as I will not support any activities which weaken privacy. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Opt-in means that the users (somewhat) control the way public information regarding them is displayed. While it could easily be argued that anybody can do the same thing (creating graphs and whatnot), I see no reason to make it a one-click-solution. --Heb (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  232. PtM (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC) It's private as long as we treat it as such. Aggregation and compilation of available data can still be original research; all Wikipedians should know this, tsk tsk tsk.[reply]
  233. Strong support for opt-in. --Hnsjrgnweis (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  234. --Jelizawjeta P. (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  235. --Joe-Tomato (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  236. --Filzstift (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Bitte nicht...[reply]
  237. Wikipedia should maintain respect for users' control over their information as much as is practicable. No need for Wikipedia to become the next Facebook (what's next, user data Graph Searches?) Wikipedia can, and should, treat user privacy much better than that. Prototime (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support keep opt-in I would not pick change to Opt-out because then those who opted out might be judged for "what are you hiding?" also don't fix what ain't broke. And as for remove the option altogether, I really do like the choice - on WP many things are public so I like to have an area where I can decide whether it is public or not. Removal of the opt in is my least favorite of the choices here. --Kikichugirl (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  239. --Stefan64 (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Users should be given a choice. --Yellow1996 | Talk 17:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support Support--ProfesorFavalli (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support Support—Showing what they are doing.So, the tool must be kept.---- உழவன்+உரை.. 01:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  243. I have opted in, so clearly i'm not too worried about mine own data; in addition, i fully realise that these data are public already, and that anyone (with the technical ability and the time) could derive the statistics from them that the tool displays. Nevertheless, i believe that (a) many people likely anticipate a certain amount of privacy when they edit, and (b) it is more user-friendly to acknowledge that expectation; an opt-in is a way of doing that. In passing, i would point out that the whole thing is redundant anyway, because Uncle Sam takes what he wants, private or not, especially with the move to Labs. LindsayH (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  244. --Mautpreller (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Braveheart (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  246. I hate it when people harp on about not looking at edit-count as a factor in considering the merit of any given Wikipedian; it comes down squarely to experience, the more edits the more experience (!)Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Users might not want to publish certain aggregated data, even if the raw data is freely available. --GDK (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  248. 069952497a (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Rzuwig 20:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  250. --Zo3a (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  251. -- Redalert2fan (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  252. --Saint-Louis (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Strong support for opt-in.-Getting stronger by the hour. It is a grave mistake to remove personal data from a country with moderate data protection laws to one with none. Can we check if this allowed under German law- and if there is a shadow of hope, the movement of data needs to be stopped. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  254. -- Llywrch (talk)
  255. --Other Choices (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  256. --Peter Putzer (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to see any reason why access to this information ought to be required. 07:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No IPs, please. NNW (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  257. --Dietzel65 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC) if somebody wants to snoop around my circadian rhythm, I'd prefer to make it not particularly easy for him.[reply]
  258. --Higimo (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Rrohdin (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC) I prefer people to make their own decisions.[reply]

Remove opt-in and replace with opt-out

  1. --Minihaa (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. King jakob c 2 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. - We are moving more and more towards a WP world focused more on EDITORS than CONTENT. See the policy from way back about what surveillance does to freedom. It is why the bulk of my edits have been made as an IP. I don't want to talk about me. I don't want when & what size to be part of the narrative of my work here. The information is public but other editors need to know HOW to dig for it so there's a level of WP-savvy that makes a kind of filter. Let's keep that filter as an option. Personal privacy, even the illusion of it, matters. EBY3221 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gamliel Fishkin (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Of course opt-in should be removed but for those who do not feel comfortable with this should be offered an opt-out. --McZusatz (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. VIGNERON * discut. 09:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Same opinion as McZusatz. Opt-in is OK too. Eiku (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Per EBY3221. --Thrissel (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Those stats are extremely useful, especially during elections. People should have the option to hide them if they so desire.--Strainu (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ゼラバト (talk to Zerabat) 14:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC) I think the same as Strainu. It it very useful during elections and also for candidatures for sysop in every wiki.[reply]
  11. It's a shame some people are using Wikimedia editing statistics for personal attacks. But as this data is already publicly available, I don't quite see the problem. But as this is a sentive question, I'll vote for this middleground solution.--Paracel63 (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'm supportive of an opt-out option with the default being opt-in. Simply makes sense and why not? I won't be using it but better than not having the option. Blurpeace 23:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. It's always good to have a safeguard should anyone use the data available for personal attacks. Those who are uncomfortable with having those data online will also be given an opportunity to protect their privacy. But most of the time I believe that the data is very harmless and should not pose much of a risk. Oliverlyc (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I think that it would be simplest for everyone involved to have opt-in by default, but have an opt-out option in case someone should not want so much data on them to be neatly displayed. After all, there is no harm in providing extra options for people, whereas there are certainly many who would appreciate the opt-out feature. Shirudo (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This statistics is an excellent alternative for "Contributions" page. It saves time when analyzing a user. So I would be happy to see it on most of people's pages. And keep chance to disable it for those who doesn't want to share. Нирваньчик (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. It's public data. Anybody can replace this counter with public data. Opt-out would be better for whom feels uncomfortable. --Ryuch (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Second choice. --Piotrus (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We already keep track of everyone's contribs. Not sure why keeping stats about this could be remotely controversial but since Wikipedia is reluctant to change, let's have an opt-out option for editors who don't want this. 20:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No IPs please.—cyberpower ChatHello! 21:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. The opt out option is the best compromise. Bruinfan12 (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Opt Out should satisfy privacy concerns. LMente 7 July 2013
  22. If folk want to opt-out, why not? Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I see no reason why any of this public information should be hidden at all, so I am ok with removing opt-in completely, but if someone really wants to hide it I don't mind providing the option. Rlendog (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Template:Conditional support. If the complete removal of opt-in does not pass. --Синкретик (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Absolutely no reason against opt-out. It's public information anyway. Inanygivenhole (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. As a currently opted-in editor, I respect the privacy concerns of others and see no reason to disallow an opt-out option. Technical 13 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove opt-in completely

  1. Not private information, and data is available on anyway. --Rschen7754 03:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] give the message Forbidden, you have no access --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe because you spelt it incorrectly? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it improved in 2011, when I could have no access to personal statistics whatsover for up to 5–6 weeks, it may still hide those for some hours with no reason given at all, I'd like to understand why it bugs so much. Lguipontes (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's no private data that I can think of. I don't see how a list of what pages I've edited is private data. Anybody could write a client-side tool to parse Special:Contributions to obtain this information... Snowolf How can I help? 04:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. But if he comes out with these informations, he should be blocked by law or at court, as well as it should occur to Wikimedia in the comparable case. -- Sozi (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, so reading Special:Contributions is a crime. --MF-W 18:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rofl, maybe not in the states of Tempora or Prism. -- Sozi (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No private data here. Stats can be aggregated from Special:Contributions...why make it harder when the data is already there. Jguy (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Though I agree that this data could possibly seen as a kind of invasion of privacy for individuals who do not expect their edits to become public, it is also already available through other means, so I think that's a moot point. Also, edits in mainspace are encyclopedic by nature, so who cares? I can't see a negative side, although it may be upsetting to future employers to see that someone has spent most of the past year editting "Game of Thrones" articles, I guess. That said, I strongly doubt that future employers are capable of looking up this tool - they are way more likely to check out their candidate's facebook page. I have always liked this tool for looking at my own edits, and I have often checked out what others have been up to. It's a great way to orient yourself quickly on the interests of other editors, and ~I think it would be great to have for teachers keeping track of student edits. Jane023 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No private data. --Holder (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No private data and theres a big need for these statistics. -- Milad A380 (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Data available elsewhere anyway. Opt-Out would be ok for me, too. -- 09:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. No IPs please. This is for sockpuppeting reasons.—cyberpower ChatHello! 12:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. per Snowolf --Glaisher (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There is really no data here that cannot be found in another way already. --MF-W 13:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No remaining need for opt-in, although I think that an opt-out feature would be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'm not sure I'm against an opt-out, but there shouldn't be a reason that one should need to opt-in. --Izno (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agreed with Snowolf. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. see #2, #6 --NyanDog 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. per above. LlamaAl (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per snowolf. MBisanz talk 17:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per snowolf. Frankly it would be trivial to build and then host a version that doesn't include an opt-in, if people wanted. Ironholds (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This seems a rather absurd discussion. This tool already exists on a non-WMF server without any option for participation, using freely available data feeds from the WMF. It seems rather silly to say that the publicly available feeds coming from the WMF cannot be analysed on WMF servers by WMF participants, when it's already been analysed on non-WMF servers. I'd rather have it here. Risker (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Absolutely no private information is used here, so there is no need for a specific opt-in. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Boogerpatrol (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. per Snowolf--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. per #1 and #2. There's nothing private here. ALH (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. per #1, #2, and 6; though were a user to be indefinitely blocked or banned completely, opt-out would be fine. Epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Uneeded as server is moved outside of German jurisdiction which prompted its inclusion. -- とある白い猫 chi? 21:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Data on editors' contributions should be widely available to combat POV pushing and similar problematic behaviour. There is no privacy issue as contributions are public record. This falls squarely in line with the foundations's privacy policy which reads: User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users. Themfromspace (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. per Snowolf. --Ricordisamoa 22:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Alan (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Not private information. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. There is no private information, the information can already be compiled (albeit very monotonously) via other means, and this information is already available on WikiChecker. There really is no reason to restrict everyone from being able to see all of these statistics, and it can be very helpful to users. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. As others have said, anybody can come in and compile such information (with a little effort, of course) and it's essentially public information. APerson241 (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. This only gives public data, so there shouldn't be a problem, especially since other users could easily write a script to get and parse API content or get an account on Toolserver or Labs and query the database for similar info.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Per Snowolf. —James (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per Snowolf and Rschen, as this information is already out there, and we're making it a lot more complicated in order to find something that some person could easily figure out on their own. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Per Snowolf. Tony (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Andyrom75 (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I've always found this ridiculous, and I even doubt that German law really required this since storing of contribution data has always been in our privacy policy, and the edit counter is just a more readable aggregation. If we can get rid of it, that's good. Darkweasel94 (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Snowolf has it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Denying a useful tool from everyone to prevent a tiny number of abuses is a community antipattern. Diff links to your edits can be used to make personal attacks against you—is that a good enough reason to disable diff linking? Obviously not. I don't see why it would be different with showing aggregate edit data. --Tgr (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Texaner (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. As I pointed out during the discussion on English Wikipedia, this is not private data. It's public data. Opt-in gives people a false sense of security: if only they decide to not opt-in, then they think that this information somehow won't be released. But it is released, and anyone can make a tool that compiles this information, whether it is hosted on Wikimedia servers or not. I think security and privacy are good and worth preserving: but this isn't either. It's placebo privacy. It gives one the illusion of privacy. If people are uncomfortable with the publication of aggregate statistics about their edits being published, then they should probably not be making said edits. The tool is also open source: there's nothing stopping another Tool Labs user from releasing a version on Tool Labs that ignores the opt-out. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support. The information is already public and most of us can gather and collate it from other tool server devices, editor contribs, and page histories, etc. The sooner the edit stats without opt-in become available as standard - as approved by clear consensus on the en.Wiki RfC here - it will make the work of RfA /RfB/ARCOM/Stewarship, voters, SPI researchers, the granting of minor user rights, and many more meta workers much easier. --Kudpung (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Laszlovszky András (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No private data and no need to opt in or out..--Rsmn (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. The information is already there, the edit counter doesn't really give information that isn't available by other means, it just makes that information more accessible. Sabbut (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Privacy is an illusion in this case. 07:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No IPs please. 07:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Most contributions are visible to everyone, just like block logs and AfD statistics. There's no difference. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --Pagony (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Support The info is already public. Thanks for asking, because the programmer could have done without having to ask.Alhen (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I agree that the data are not private (and, correspondingly, there is pretty nothing to protect by opt-in). --Andiorahn (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. The information isn't private, confidential or related to one's identity. JamesA (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Wikichecker provides far more detailed information .. to be honest this is laughable.--Gilderien (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. The data is already public, this counter merely collates it. Matma Rex (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. There is no reason I can think of keeping the opt-in, or opt-out. There's nothing private in that data.Extra999 (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. The info is already there, but thanks for asking. It is better tools are made by people within the community, than independent net sites. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Support I agree that these data are not private, and I like to follow my own statistics and can't see any problems if the statistics are public, as they are already in other ways, as mentioned above. EileenSanda (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. "Opt out" is pointless, as there really no option, it is already public information. "Opt in" is like pretending you have made a choice to ignore the obvious. Everyone already opted in with their first edit, no reason to pretend otherwise. Jeepday (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. If the function could already be done privately, it must become public. JackPotte (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. No any reasons to not show this information. --Stryn (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Per Stryn. ----Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Yes please --FiliP ██ 12:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. These informations are available in a database owned by Wikimedia Foundation, and are published under CC licence or GFDL. Anyone can extract these and do whatever he likes. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Support As EileenSanda and others.--Szilas (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --Smihael (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Support The information is already public. This just gives everyone the same tools and view, leveling the field. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Support AzaToth (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. There's no logical reason why the display of edit statistics should not be available. However, it's ultimately the tool writer who should decide. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. --Hoff1980 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Data is already there, so why making it harder to get? --.sEdivad (msg) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support providing this data about contributions made under an open license. Although I have some sympathy with those who feel squeamish about having their activities subject to scrutiny, I think it is important for people to conduct themselves in public as if they were, well, in public.

    There is no reasonable expectation of privacy about how an account has been used in this very public venue. By creating a false impression that such an expectation is valid, making this optional undermines the normative sense of accountability for one's public conduct. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  69. Support No concerns because it is not a private info. Faizan 17:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per Snowolf and there being no private data on the tool.. ·addshore· talk to me! 18:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. As far as i know the edit-counters (on TS and Labs) doesn't use any private data for this job. Anyone can collect this information via public API interface with a piece of selfmade script code (phyton, perl, whatever). So, anyone can collect this data for any accounts. Anyone can use this data to create some nice drawings, generate user statistics or use the collected data somewhere else.--Wdwd (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Support No sence in opting in. I can get such data via own bot if I want but why should I invite a bicycle if tool can show me that. If it eats a lot of resources then do it hidden by default but with a link like "show monthly data". --Base (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Support this are public informations, this tool only visualise them. JAn Dudík (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Support it is not a private info. Gustronico (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. -- Bwag (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. I don't feel that viewing user's statistics is kind of stalking, if I can see anyone's contibutions. Draceane (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. It's not stalking and no personal info is given away. If they are making edits to Wiki sites, then they have chosen to make that data available via edit summaries. All this does is collates that data together in an easy to access location. Oddbodz (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Simply visualisation of commonly available data. No reason for any restriction. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Support -- 23:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. No IPs please. This is for sockpuppeting reasons.—cyberpower ChatHello! 02:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Support. Completely public information that is just put together with the tool. Same as Central Auth, Stalk toy... no privacy issue here, so I can't understand why privacy is being used as reason to oppose that.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Per above. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Legoktm (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Support - Bonze blayk (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Support Huon (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Support MusikAnimal (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Support i don't see any reaons that it should be private.Trongphu (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Support per Snowolf -- John of Reading (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Support, Jmvkrecords (Intra Talk) 06:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  88. A compilation of public data does not violate anyone's privacy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Support Strongly - DiptanshuTalk 07:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Support Nothing private about this data, as far as I'm concerned. Avic (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support per Snowolf. Bruce1ee (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. This is public data, and maintaining an opt-in encourages the kind of totally misguided thinking visible in many comments in the opposition section above. Some of them are serious facepalm territory. It's also almost inevitable that someone will, as is suggested in the introduction to this page, create a similar tool that simply does not waste time by requiring users' "permission" to analyze data that is completely public, so maintaining the opt-in for this tool will be completely pointless. — Scott talk 09:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Support -Anasuya.D (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Support The data is available in Special:Contributions anyway. Sophus Bie (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Support - Hedoport (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Support - TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Support This is far better. :-) -- ɑηsuмaη «T» 12:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Support. Every users' contribution statistic is open to public already. --Hargau (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Nothing done on a wiki is private. Those tools are useful for researchers. Stop obstructing them, and if you really care about privacy, go bug your politicians about online privacy and such. Sigh. --Piotrus (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Support This is far better. I have to remove it so, I support! 22dragon22burn (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Support - This is, and should be, accessible public information. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Support --Wmeinhart (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong support Strong support I think it's mistaken to even consider privacy an issue here. Privacy is not edit counter's job. Sure you can sugarcoat but requiring such tool to take care of privacy is breaking the tool. --Wikiloop (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Support This is effectively public data, usefully aggregated by a tool. Wikipedia demands transparency to avoid shenanigans, and this is a useful method of providing such transparency. Frankly, I can't imagine an above-board reason why an editor would care to prevent the aggregation of date about, for example, what articles they have edited the most, or what namespaces they have made the most edits it. BD2412 T 02:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Support - This is a summary. It's the "contributions" that contain personal information, such as daily editing patterns, topic interests, edit summaries, etc. The edit count is easy to check when someone needs to know an editor's general level of experience, and probably results in fewer people looking through the detailed contributions, resulting in (marginally) improved privacy. Anne Delong (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Per Rschen7754 and others. The information is publicly available already, so why not list it? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Just shows what user did which is transparent in contributions already, except that it is not consolidated so well as this tool. So nothing is personal or private here in WP. There are no secrets in what a user did. WP is not Las Vegas. A.amitkumar (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Remove opt-in. Edit counts shouldn't be private and many users don't know what is opt-in and how to create them. So it's better to remove opt-in--Pratyya (Hello!) 08:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Wikipedia isn't for the paranoid. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Per Snowolf and others. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 12:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. I see no problem with this data. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. no need to keep it.--Arnaugir (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Support. I'm an 18-years-old hikikomori to whom such data would be used in a compromising real-life way in the future, as I surf the internet at all possible hours of the day/night and all the time instead of completing my ultra-bad quality [Rio de Janeiro state] public high school – oh, the oxymoron, those disponible to me are all below mediocre, I'll get just the degree with them – despite retired teacher parent's efforts to end this behavior (enrolling me there year after year with different and increasing excuses and levels of shame written at her face), this time giving up. But I'm just not against those statistics, if I do or anyone else does wrong things it is by my/their full free will (and my opinion is that every Wikipedian should be conscious of this before putting information here, that everyone knows to be accessible to the world at large, in the first place), and if they don't have the competence to understand basic principles such as this they shouldn't even be here. Lguipontes (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems I got the same wrong impression as Thane. My comment was essentially applying to the same observation s/he did. Then, Sorry, the time and day of week graph is on another statistic tool, not X's Edit Counter. My bad. [2] Lguipontes (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. unneccessary crop should be removed --Matthiasb (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Contributions to Wikipedia are open and transparent, I don't really see the need to hide this data, given that (i) it's freely available to anyone willing to analyse the list of contributions, and (ii) what dark secrets will it reveal about people anyway? I don't mind having an opt-out, although I doubt it would be used much. Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. All information already available with Contributions (which is far more detailed) so there isn't any privacy issue that does not already exist. Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. The information is public, and we can't control what people do. If this tool is limited on labs, what's to stop someone from just registering a domain and hosting the exact same tool? Limiting this is a feeling of privacy, with no actual privacy. It's security by obscurity.--Ryan Lane (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Agree with assessment presented by Snowolf, Rschen, Tom, and Kudpung. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Support ok. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Kennedy (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Support --Phyrexian ɸ 14:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support per Snowolf, Tom Morris, Kudpung. That being said, I would eliminate the graph depicting time and day of week of edits, not because it isn't public info, but because I don't see a reason for this info, and I do see how this info might be used in a predatory way by those with ill will among us. Two cents.   Thaneformerly Guðsþegn  14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the time and day of week graph is on another statistic tool, not X's Edit Counter. My bad.   Thaneformerly Guðsþegn  14:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Support it is not private --Pyfisch (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. There's no private information in Special:Contributions. EVula // talk // 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. No private data. Wanwa (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. I really don't see what is so private about this data. The Anonymouse (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Ridiculous. -FASTILY 22:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - As already noted, the data is public and available to anyone. Doctree (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Support As per EVula,Snowwolf and Risker there is nothing private information in Special:Contributions. . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. These are not private information. --G3ron1mo (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Regardless whether this is "private" info, the opt-out gives the impression that the info is more difficult to obtain than it actually is. Anyone with trivial coding skills can gather this info in a few minutes from the Wikipedia API. The idea of an opt-out would make sense if it was burdensome to gather the data, so the people would be unlikely to do it themselves, but in this case it is not burdensome in any way. We should only use an opt-out where it makes a genuine difference (or where it is legally required). — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Not sure how this information could be considered any sort of private. TCN7JM (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Support - Data is already public, opting out or in is ludicrous and ridiculous Eduemoni (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Support If you don't wish to participate in Wikipedia, then don't edit. There will be nothing for Edit Counter to show. Varlaam (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - Everything anyone does on WP (except revedeleted and oversighted edits) is by definition public. There is no privacy here to protect anyway. Dodger67 (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Support If someone really wanted to know, they could pick through contributions for forever (this is public data, anyhow), or they can use a simple tool. It makes much more sense to make the tool accessible. The only reason to opt-out, as far as I can tell, would be to avoid giving other editors and easy way to see abnormal patterns in editing (e.g. in an administrator nomination, if only almost all edits were in the last few months). On a more practical note, I'd like this to be activated by default to simply save me the time of having to opt-in. Also, might I add the I strongly Comment suggest that, since this is unlikely to gain consensus one way or the other, that those determining consensus consider the "remove opt-in completely" !voters to favor "opt-out" over "keep opt-in" - I think that I can generalize that we feel this way, though I encourage others to correct me if I'm wrong. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Support The same as Varlaam (num. 135) Ldorfman (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Support Not private information. —Ynhockey (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. no information I couldn't gain elsewhere, as long as contributions are listed without any restrictions (it's a wiki, open to anybody!) --Holmium (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Opt-in is not necessary,and it is non-private infomation,so opt-out is not necessary,either.Lsmll (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. It is absurd to suggest this is private data. the wub "?!" 11:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  143. This isn't private data. IIRC it can be found on other unrelated tools already, anyways, so why hide it here? Ansh666 (talk), from en-wiki. 00:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Support Adeliine (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Support - increases transparency of public information. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Support, it is not something private and it makes no sense to hide it, because nearly all other Wikimedia logs are public —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 30 June 2013; 17:20
  147. Support Support This is something that can be reached by scanning the user's contributions, so I don't see a reason to "hide" it. — ΛΧΣ21 19:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Support Mere aggregation of already public information. -- King of 05:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Support Nuff said Truthanado (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Support Ehrhardt (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Support Let's be transparent. Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  152. I don't see how this is private data; that being said, I don't believe opt-in is necessary. MJ94 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Support as per Hahc21. Abhishikt (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Support Not private information in the first place. Nascar1996 (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Support As it stands now, only users with knowledge of particular tools can see comprehensive edit histories. That does not help anybody. It is better to have the information out in the open and be as transparent as possible about it. Andrewman327 (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Support On wp:fr, a contributor (with wikimedia france support) create a tool ( which give approximately equally information for wp:fr as the X!'s Edit Counter, without lag. So in final have a link in every page "Spécial:Contribution" (likeécial:Contributions/Nouill). If wikimedia and wikilabs don't have a accessible stat tool without silly barrier, others will do this. Because stat are useful and demand. --Nouill (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  157. No private data to begin with. Someone with the right computer programming knowledge could extract all of these info without all the legalese. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Per others. Now that we are out of Germany, we can freely provide this information, and so we should. I am disappointed to see that many "votes" to keep opt-in are accompanied by no rationale whatsoever. This, that and the other (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Support The information is available anyway, this just saves time compiling it. These are not Constitutional rights we're talking about. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Support. Similar information and graphs are already available at Wikichecker. There is no reason not to allow this information, it would just be cutting out the ads. SpinningSpark 00:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support Support I find the data useful when trying to evaluate a puzzling edit. (Is it the work of an experienced editor who knows a topic better than I do, a slip-up by an experienced editor working out of his or her usual areas of expertise, a mistake by a newbie who meant well, or a possible vandal?) People are discouraged from including real names in their Wikipedia profiles, so this isn't personally identifiable information anyway. (OK, maybe it is if legal action forces a trace of an IP number.) And, as others note, it's fairly trivial to mine the data even without the tool, so an opt-out offers more complacency than privacy. —Steve98052 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support Support There is no private data. Let's be transparent. --Tangopaso (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Support Info is not private anyway, no reason to hide it. Valenciano (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Support Too much information is now being hidden from non admins on the English Wikipedia... there is no reason to hide this information. Only editors who are not basically here to build the encyclopaedia are going to object to people seeing their edit statistics. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Support Use of either Opt-in or Opt-out amounts to giving permission to hide published information. By allowing some to be excluded from it, data is biased but the influence of this bias isn't clear. Getting rid of it altogether makes sense. Examples of how to use the data properly might be useful. 03:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC) No IPs, please. NNW (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Support all said. Alexpl (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Support Per everything said above. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Support complete removal of opt-in. Had the tool not been created to run on a German server originally, this opt-in feature would have never been available in the first place. I see no need to keep it as an option. It is no longer relevant. The same features should apply to all users, not just some. Amatulic (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Support Unnecessary nuisance. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support Support We are a wiki, there is no privacy even without the X! counter Fale (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Support Doesn't really matter to me, if some would like to keep track of the edit scores. In the same token, I don't really care who knows that I made a specific edit. The Illusion is those who think they have privacy by not submitting user information. Two additional things, 1. From a server administration point of view, it is Imperative that server logs be kept. PERIOD. 2. I think that the Opt-out, makes way more sense, than the opt-in. --Stevenrowe6(Talk)
  171. The notion that this is information can be controlled via opt-in is an illusion. Much better to facilitate full transparency. Bkonrad (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  172. No reason not to. Information is already there, just harder to access Purplebackpack89 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support Support--Dwaipayanc (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Support Ginsuloft (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Bidgee (Talk) 15:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  176. The information is already out there, requiring opt-in just makes it harder to access. There is never anything gained by making information harder to access. Scottywong (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Strong support Strong support--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  178. I don't see any issues with displaying the information. From an administrator perspective, it sometimes helps when evaluating user conduct. I'd actually favor being able to access more information about the users in one place.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  179. --Niklem (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Transparency breeds honesty. Bollyjeff (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  181. No privacy issue, since the data is not private. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support Support. This is about transparency. We preserve the history of all edits precisely so that anyone can look at the record and see who did what. No one gets to grind an ax in secret. Whatever anyone contributes is open to review by everyone. That's by design. The edit counter merely summarizes this deliberately public information in a useful fashion. Msnicki (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  183. not private data, and I fail to see any privacy issue, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  184. It's not private data, and therefore should not be treated as such. Craig Franklin (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  185. Statistics based on open data can't be secret data. --Синкретик (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Support Beaucoup de personnes voudraient montrer leurs statistiques sans savoir comment, ou sans savoir qu'il faut l'opt-in : c'est une grande perte. Google Trad => Many people want to show their statistics without knowing how, or without knowing that it should be opt-in: This is a great loss. --Orikrin1998 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support Support Compare with products such as taxation catalogues, available to anyone and compiled solely with information from public sources (such as income declarations), listing the annual income (and similar information) of all citizens in a selected area, for example a municipality. As far as I can tell, no one has ever complained about taxation catalogues being available. This tool appears to collect information from public sources in a similar way, and I don't see why this tool should be treated any different. Also, anyone can already access the information by downloading selected files from or by using mw:API. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support Support An editor's contribution history is not private data. X!'s Edit Counter helps to make already public information more accessible. Transparency is important. Kurtis (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Support If you desire privacy, avoid the internet! Williamborg (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support Support It's meaningless to try to hide something that is already in, or which can easily become available in, the public domain. Bazonka (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support Support - this data is reasonably accessable; and in some cases, checking a user's most edited pages canbe useful in determining things such as POV, sockpuppetry, or reasonable sanctions by ArbCom or community. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support Support This information is in no wise private. We need more transparency about editor contributions.Stanistani (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Support Edits are already public, and compiling statistics from the is in no way a privacy violation. Security through obscurity does not work, and makes no sense for stuff which is anyway public already. Cyclopia (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support Support public anyway and useful. Casliber (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  195. This isn't private information. The complaints from the German neighbors about US invasions of privacy don't really pertain. The information is quite helpful, and I find myself a bit frustrated when a user hasn't opted in. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • I should note that this only affects the version hosted on Wikimedia Labs, and not the Toolserver version which is bound by the TOS of Toolserver and is at the moment still the only version that supports all Wikimedia Wikis. Snowolf How can I help? 02:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. That is correct. Once labs is fully setup, the toolserver version will be disabled.—cyberpower ChatHello! 02:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much hope that that won't be the case, at least until we have some track record of labs stability now that they're getting more and more tools. There is no drawback to redundancy, especially when Wikimedia Labs for access to the Wikimedia Clusters' db is a very new feature with as of yet no track record in regards to stability. Snowolf How can I help? 04:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Nothing wrong with a little bit of redundancy. Legoktm (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, at some point in 2014, WMDE will discontinue the toolserver so that staying is no option. ·addshore· talk to me! 09:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah, but I mean I don't see any reason to discontinue it before that :) Snowolf How can I help? 14:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh! Indeed! :) ·addshore· talk to me! 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted a small notice at the Kurier about this RFC as this affects all editors. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm, I'm not sure a vote on Meta-Wiki has the ability to control this. Can't I just write my own tool and do whatever I want? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    yes it does. I have access to these tools and can modify them. I started the RfC and I can determine the outcome. So I'm giving the community a chance to decide.—cyberpower ChatHello! 17:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand your answer. What are you saying yes to? Risker (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes as in, that this discussion on meta will influence the outcome of the tool. MZMcBride stated that a discussion will not have the power to change the tool. Since I started the discussion, and because I am now the lead maintainer, I simply stated that this discussion can change the tool, if consensus for this change is established.—cyberpower ChatHello! 19:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well, MZM is correct. This discussion doesn't change the tool. The only possible influence it has is in what version of the tool is hosted on WMFLabs. The tool already exists. Various forms of it already exist on non-WMF servers, and have no opt-in/opt-out. I think you're being disingenuous by completely failing to mention that ALL of the data is already publicly available and that WMF users not participating in the WMFLabs version means only that the info isn't on Labs. I believe there is a genuine misunderstanding, and that most people who are voting to keep the opt-in believe that means their information won't be accessible through the publicly available data. They are wrong. Risker (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that was implied. I didn't figure that people believed that the tool was displaying private information. From what I gathered, people, didn't appreciate stats like that being compiled on the spot, and so conveniently.—cyberpower ChatHello! 19:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] and I am committed to do so. -- Sozi (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Making legal threats can and will lead to a block. Threatening to convict me of a crime, will accomplish nothing.—cyberpower ChatHello! 19:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, I earn my money as graphic designer, not as Wikimedian. If the EC tangles with Google, Amazon, Microsoft et al, Wikimedia will be a minor opponent. Not you. You are not the problem. -- Sozi (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be making legal threats under the strange illusion that this discussion is about something which is illegal, namely the release of personal information of Wikimedians. It isn't. It's about aggregation of public information in a usable form. Which is both legal and which there are a wide variety of companies—many in the EU—doing without issue. Making legal threats during Wikimedia community discussions is generally bad; making absurd legal threats with no basis in reality just ends up making you look like an utter fool. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this RFC does not bind anyone, I am grateful to Cyberpower678 for having started it. Even independent from X!'s edit counter it invites a wide range of voices whether editors feel comfortable with the loss of the opt-in model or not. Beyond that we are still able to ask the WMF to enforce the opt-in model by policy. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know if this is germane to the discussion. The edit counter has always been appreciated. What I don't quite understand is why a user's edit count isn't handled by 'Contributions'. When you click on contributions it shows the latest edits, page-name/link where the edit was made, size of the edit, time and date of the edit, along with the edit summary. All these details come up instantly, never a replication lag, so why can't this same system simply keep track of the number of the edit involved? Seems it would lighten the work load for this edit counter which frequently is subject to replication lag. -- 21:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user stated obove: Everyone already opted in with their first edit, no reason to pretend otherwise.. - Yes, everybody (indirectly) agreed that his single edits are tracable. But: This does not include a consent to an automatic and systematic analyze of user profiles. In my country, such data mining is even forbidden by law. An explicit consent is required. --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even used this tool? All it offers on an opt-in bases is the list of the pages you've edited most frequently and how the breakdown of edits per month. I think you must be mistaking this with WikiChecker which offers detailed statistics on the time of the day where you edit etc.. Many external tools offer incredibly detailed analysis of the edits, and any of use could write a third party tool to scrape Special:Contributions, with the obvious limits that that would impose. Honestly, if you consider the number of edits you make per month and your most edited articles personal information needing of protection, you should give some serious thought to whether it is wise to contribute at all, given third party tools have allowed one to dig up this information for years, with much, much more detail than what this tool does... Snowolf How can I help? 14:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I know what I am talking about, and of course, there are even more detailled profiling and data mining methods. Here, we are talking about a tool that Wikimedia runs on their servers, and I feel free to express my concerns about it. I even don't want a tool that lists my "main issues", and in my environment such profiling, even if done out off publicly available informations, is felt to be illegal. The proposal is that everybody who feels comfortable with such a tool might opt-in for himself so that nobody is handicaped by or forced to a handling that he personally doesn't want. --Martina Nolte (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see all "oppose" votes removed from people that do not sign with their real names. Regards, the real --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right that all those who have voted for Remove opt-in completely are against an opt-out option if they should succeed?--Aschmidt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally voted for Remove opt-in completely because it is what I would have as my main choice. However, I would rather have an opt-out that have it left as opt-in. Oddbodz (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sonst hätten sie sich ja unter #Remove opt-in and replace with opt-out eingetragen.
This means that many users want other users to be forced to this data aggregation about themselves on WMF servers which is illegal in a lot of those user’s countries. But on the other hand, on Commons, the legal right of pictures made in the source country is being respected as well as US right and not ignored such as in this proposal. Here, the legal rights in many source countries of the aggregated data prohibits to present such data in such a form, but that shall not be respected anymore, and persons who contribute shall be forced to accept this and shall not even be able to opt-out anymore? I just can’t believe this happening here. --Geitost diskusjon 22:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ich bin da ganz bei Dir Geitost. Ich vertraue aber auf Thilo Weichert (und auf die absehbare Mehrheit hier) ;-) --Mogelzahn (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the Foundation servers. The fact that lots of countries have utterly bizarre laws that prevent basic processing of public information shouldn't be the concern of the Foundation. The fact that the laws of the EU apparently protect me from someone going through my Wikipedia edits and saying "oh, did you know that Tom edited the article on whatever 15 times this month?" but doesn't protect me from my government intercepting all my emails shows you what a load of shit those laws are. The Foundation shouldn't respect stupid laws in other countries. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You really think that an EU law should protect YOU from your US government? It’s a stupid EU law that doesn’t protect YOU from your own US government??? Don’t believe it. Your US law is also the reason that free pictures of things made in the EU are deleted on Commons. So stupid is US law, that’s really shit not respecting the freedom of panorama of the countries in which pictures are made. The Foundation shouldn’t respect laws in other countries? Noone owns the wikis. Why shouldn’t law not be respected here? Das ist doch kein rechtsfreier Raum hier. And the US law should protect its citizens on its own, no other country’s law is able to do this instead. --Geitost diskusjon 07:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ranting, but Tom is British and as subject to EU law as you. So, fail. — Scott talk 09:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, British isn't "proper" European after all. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He spoke of his own government intercepting his emails, so it seemed that this would be the US government which is known for that. I didn’t notice until now that also the British government has been intercepting emails of its citizens. oO Not good at all. Then he should have written which government he meant. --Geitost diskusjon 11:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To bring it back to a less emotional discussion: In regard to copyright laws the Wikimedia Foundation takes care of foreign laws, unregardless of the question if these laws are "utterly bizarre" or appropriate in their view. The Foundation just protects itself against take down court cases by according to these laws as well as to their own US laws. In regard to editor's rights, they can for sure feel less threatend and thus could care less for foreign laws. The main question we are discussion about is: Should they?? --Martina Nolte (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom Morris: Would you mind considering that the laws of these "other countries" you are referring to are the laws of this country? This is what makes all the difference.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "other countries" are countries outside the US. The country of my own citizenship (UK) is irrelevant to this discussion. If the EU pass stupid laws—and I'd argue that something that makes doing statistics on publicly available information in the name of placebo security is pretty stupid—then Wikimedia Foundation needn't follow them. Just like the WMF doesn't follow the Chinese laws on Internet censorship. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a nonsense comparison and disqualifies you in my eyes for this discussion. --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's no way the tool can identify you.—cyberpower ChatHello! 02:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The number of edits in itself isn't the problem. But the aggregated information is. Especially when and how often someone edits discloes a lot of his/her habits that is irrrelevant regarding the work within wikipedia. --Zinnmann (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone personally think, that there is nothing to hide, then he is free to opt-in. But if another one don't want to be profiled, this should be respected as well. --Alexrk2 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the edit count is not available, those who need to figure out how experienced an editor is will have to resort to digging through their contributions, leading to less privacy. Anne Delong (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Personally I accept opt-out and, of course, opt-in. I accept opt-out because the detailed contribution are already present in user contribution page. The monthly edits and most edited pages are the simple extracts. If a user wants to know another user's or his monthly edits, a not-long Javascript will do. X!s Edit Counter should be more professional than a user script and have better integration of other edit information (for example First edit, Unique pages edited, etc.). Forbidding users to disable the function is not a good idea. I just state my opinion and do not require other people to accept opt-out.--Gqqnb (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only should the entirely artificial and misleading mechanism hiding this entirely public data be removed, but this edit counting and analysis functionality should be merged into MediaWiki and made prominently available from every user page. — Scott talk 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral Actually I do not understand why opt-in should be an option. In fact the "user contribution" itself tells you the areas where a Wikipedian edits. Thus opting-out would be pratically useless if someone's goal is to collect information on your contributions. Plus no one believes that contributing to certain articles (i.e. homosexuality, religion, pornography) reveals your interests. You might as well contribute there for patrolling reasons, or for maintenance purpose (adjusting wikilinks, adding categories, and so on). In short, collecting an user's edited articles does not necessarily give us information about the user itself. Yet I understand the concern of those users who don't want to make collectors' job easier, for this reason I stay neutral on this matter. -- Blackcat (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

split opt-ins for monthly graphs and mostly edited pages

  • Support Support I wish there would be such an option to be able to choose if you want to opt-in just the monthly graphs (f.e. temporarily or for RFAs or constantly) without being forced also to opt-in the mostly edited pages at the same time – and also the other way round, if someone wants that. --Geitost diskusjon 09:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No way, per above. --Ricordisamoa 12:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you want to remove opt-in completely. But that’s not, what most of the people want. If opt-in stays as it is (and I think it will) and you (or others) oppose to the opportunity to be able to opt-in for one of the two graphs only instead of both altogether, then people (like me) will never opt-in both options cause they don’t feel comfortable with one of the options. So, it would also be better for the opposers of the opt-in, if there at least would be a chance to opt-in to just one of the two graphs. Cause otherwise, none of the graphs will be seen for everybody. With splitting of the opt-in, there would be more people who would opt-in just one of the two graphs, I think they would rather opt-in the monthly graphs than the mostly edited pages. (And I think that there has been such an opportunity in the past which has been put away again, and I don’t even know why.)
    For example: The second one is an option which I would never opt-in at all, so it would never be possible for others to see the monthly graphs also cause it’s not split from another. If you want it that way, it’s up to you. But I will then very surely never opt-in such a coupled option (which doesn’t distinguish at all between two so much different informations), that’s for sure. Perhaps then another person will create another editcounter with only monthly graphs, so that people can opt-in that only and not also other sensible things by the way? I think it’s completely irrelevant which pages I’ve edited most and I don’t want to have such a statistic. --Geitost diskusjon 13:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you "don’t want to have such a statistic", simply avoid editing wikis, since anyone could easily gather that information via the MediaWiki API. It would be still legitimate to create a fork of X!'s Edit Counter without the possibility to opt-out; I myself use a quick JavaScript snippet to get month/namespace, weekday and most-edited statistics. It is legitimate, nobody could oppose it. --Ricordisamoa 00:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    this is a nonsence, and you should know it. -jkb- 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support could be a solution, may be, -jkb- 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I whole-heartedly support this; the only reason I do not currently opt-in is because of the most edited pages statistic. I would have no problem displaying my monthly edit counts. Shirudo (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I would choose to show monthly counts, not top edited pages, because most of my "top ten" pages are ones I have not looked at for years. I can understand that other editors would not want to show either, or would like to show both. All the information is publicly available, of course. It is a question of whether an editor wants it to be immediately available to their employer, friends & colleagues, or whether they should have to dig a bit. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support That makes sense to me. Probably quite a few users object to only one of the statisics and would not mind being included in the other one. --Amberg (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Although it doesn't seem likely to be implemented, this would be my preferred option. benzband (talkenwp) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (if you reply to me please leave a note on my talkpage)[reply]
  • This section's going to need a lot more participation if this is going to get any attention.—cyberpower ChatHello! 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I'm a newbie and not sure if this is the best place to add my 2 cents. I generally agree with AFBorchert's comments on this page and particularly these sentiments on Talk:Privacy policy/Call for input (2013), that WMF's central focus should be "...the best interest of the mission and the editors who contribute to achieve that" and, by extension to privacy, "avoid editor surveillance as far as possible, i.e. transparency is important but editor profiling is not...." --Litjade (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per argument by Geitost above. --Kikichugirl (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support it is only after to have been targetted, that you understand how innocent data can used against you. There are some articles that are far too dangerous to have on an open edit list. I don't fancy my chances if some loopy fundamentalist God freaks see I have contributed to an article on Abortion, even if it were to correct a typo, or MI5 saw I had edited an article on Snowden or Assange. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Many of you might be unaware that at Wikichecker similar information and graphs are already available and all you have to do is to type in the name of the user or article in the appropriate box. The only difference is that it is ad supported. DiptanshuTalk 04:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This might be useful for en:wp - what about Hindi or other Indic Wikipedia? What about Commons/Meta, etc? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Just a note to point out that the Edit Counter fails to provide the correct number for the "Total edits (including deleted)" count. For my totals, for example, the number is exactly the same as the "Live edits" count, which is incorrect. The toolserver version gives the correct (different) counts, though. Loadmaster (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Yeah, that's a known bug that appeared as soon as the tool was copied over to WMFlabs. It shows 0 deleted edits always and even after deleting new edits it still shows 0, so it's not like the tool merely "missed" old deletions, it doesn't see them at all. Soap (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain the deleted edits bug. As the tool maintainer, there is nothing more annoying than the tool not being able to do what it's supposed to. However, the problem is with labs because the archive table in the databases are not accessible. Labs is waiting for the WMF Legal team to give the OK to allow labs users to access deleted content. It's been many weeks now and still no word from legal.—cyberpower ChatHello! 22:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This stems from our initial requirement that the replicated databases present the same information that is available to unprivileged logged-in users – the obvious goal being that one should not be able to use the tool labs as a means to circumvent project access controls. That said, there is a reasonable case to be made that some of the information that can be gleaned from the archive table (which is the table at issue here) could perhaps be made available. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a quick note, Legal has indeed approved replication of (the relevant parts of) the archive table, so counts of deleted edits will be available again. There is a technical hurdle to jump first, however, so it is likely to arrived after Wikimania. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overblown wording of the notice on the Edit Counter display makes it seem like the page might be in danger of vanishing entirely: "An RfC about the fate of the edit counter is in progress." I don't blame Ancheta Wis for being concerned. The only thing in question, however, seems to be the possible change to the current opt-in for monthly and other stats breakdowns, and with the RfC ongoing for opt-in/out. The new announcement about the opt-in going away in early August seems to indicate that the fate of the opt-in is that of a doomed feature, as odd as it may be to announce the outcome of an RfC before it has been closed. 07:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]