Wikipedia talk:Highly Active Users/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Now that you've linked to this...

I'm compelled to ask when you began creation on the list. Also, what is the criteria? It's users you've come in contact with that you've noticed to be very active? Just trying to clarify. Finally, I assume the table is intended to include everyone on the list? Enigma ^message 06:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ah, I see you're in the process of adding to the table. Enigma ^message 06:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just a little slow at getting the table set up properly. I haven't yet come up with a concrete criteria. Useight (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And I had been thinking about a list like this for a while, but just started setting it up a couple of days ago. Useight (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Useight, I have to say that this is a very useful subpage. Helpful for users who are curious as to who is likely to respond to inquires and the like. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of typos and added my location. One comment: I really don't think Gurch belongs on this list. Enigma ^message 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One additional comment: You think maybe there are people who wouldn't like being on such a list? I'm not really sure how to proceed, because contacting each one individually would be excessive. Enigma ^message 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel Gurch shouldn't be on the list? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can he be classified as highly active? No one's ever sure if he's around, what username he's using, or anything else. You noticed he wasn't responded to messages left on his talk page, right? I suppose he's on Wikipedia quite a bit, but he has a bunch of usernames, and I don't leave messages on his talk page because I have no idea if he even reads it, let alone responds. E-mails to him often are ignored and people have a lot of trouble getting on the Huggle distribution list. I admire Gurch's contributions to the project, especially via Huggle, but he's one of the last people I'd expect to see on this list. Enigma ^message 07:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem. :) Lets wait and see his reasoning behind inclusion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Go to Wikipedia_talk:Huggle. Notice anything? I've actually been responsible for distributing the program and sending out updates because people are unable to get a response from Gurch. I don't want to sound like I'm complaining. I was happy to help out. I also think Gurch is great. He simply doesn't fit the criteria I have in mind for this page. Enigma ^message 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

here Enigma ^message 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I must be the last one. Mine was given without sarcasm either. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gurch is active as User:Huggle. He's also on IRC and available by email. He just gets annoyed by drama, especially drama around his activity (ironic, eh). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He's edited under three accounts that I know of in the past month. That's what I was referring to when I said "No one's ever sure if he's around, what username he's using, or anything else." Gurch's activity or lack thereof is his business. I was saying there are more appropriate people I can think of for this list. Enigma ^message 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

After considering both sides of the argument, I'm taking Gurch out of the list. I guess I put him in the list because he's a recognizable name, but you guys are right that he often takes a long time to respond to Huggle requests. Sorry I took so long to respond, but I went to sleep. Useight (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

own daytime hours.

respond during their own daytime hours. IMHO this is more fallacy as most eds I deal with are as active at night if not more so. Gnangarra 15:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially me. I think it's more excluding hours when most people sleep. Vast majority of editors aren't active from 3-7 AM their time, most notably. If it's 4 AM in Eastern Australia and you need a quick response, you may want to approach someone other than Anonymous Dissident, for example. Enigma ^message 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I usually edit in the morning hours (9-11AM), go to class, then am again available between 4PM and 12AM. Obviously I'm not editing constantly for 10 hours a day, but I am checking my talk page and watchlist fairly thoroughly. I guess the wording should instead say something about not contacting a user between 2AM and 7AM local time. Useight (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't edit from morning until night, but I'm usually able to check every so often for a new message bar. Enigma ^message 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Table organization

I was thinking that the table should be organized by timezone (or general area) instead of alphabetically, as I think that would be more helpful. Any comments on that? Useight (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed, as you mentioned when bringing it up at WT:RFA. Enigma ^message 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Weighted question

I am no way endorsing this outlook/perspective, but does anybody feel that many editors might view this subpage as..well kinda cabalish? I ask only because I pretty much recognize every single editor listed, and they seem to be the RfA regulars. Thoughts? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TINC :D Enigma ^message 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It does seem weighted toward RFA regulars for now, because that's where I initially started gathering names. Give me a little more time, I have to go attend class now, but I am starting to go through Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits to find more editors who are very active. Hopefully by the end of the day the list will be more representative. Useight (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's find, I certainly knew there was no bias involved here. I trust that as the list grows, it will diversify. Have fun at class! haha. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

More categories

Maybe it could use categories-or another field in the table-to tell what activities the user is most experienced/active in. Malinaccier (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. Another field could list whether they specialize in XFD, AIV, ANI, UAA, etc. And perhaps yet another field could contain whether they can be contacted via e-mail. This is turning into a big project, any help would be appreciated. Useight (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)I'll work on adding an e-mail section tonight and checking each person. Enigma ^message 00:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so maybe I'll hold off until we fill it out more. I'm willing to do that part, though. Enigma ^message 00:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's get the list compiled more before expanding it in details. Useight (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanded table to include whether the editors have email enabled, as well as their areas of "expertise". This is definitely a work in progress. How does everybody feel about these changes? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I edit conflicted with you on that, I'll straighten it out. Useight (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

Any help in hammering out the criteria would be great, too. Is 500 edits in the last month "highly active"? Does it take 1000? Is being an admin required? Is being able to be contacted via e-mail required? Is anything required? Useight (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) 500 well thought out edits seems ok (or 10,000 huggle/AWB edits =) ). I really think it should be limited only to people who consider themselves highly active, and if anyone disagrees it could be uncontroversially discussed. 500 edits in the last month is a ton of people.

Adminship shouldn't be required, but only desired. Most people have email enabled so that's no problem really. Malinaccier (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm finding that 500 edits last month is a lot of editors, perhaps several hundred. Perhaps 1000 would be better? Useight (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Most on there right now don't have 1000. We could just make it discretional. Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep adding users to the list using Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits that had 500 or more edits. I have 32 more minutes before Survivor comes on TV, so I'll do that until then. If you want to add or remove names, please do it after that so I don't edit conflict. Useight (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like many are based on overall edits, not recent activity level. TJ Spyke hasn't edited in well over a month. I'll remove him and any others I notice. Enigma ^message 04:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't have time to look at wannabekate stats, so I'm using the data collected between mid-February and mid-March. Anyone who made 500+ edits between that time period has been going on the list. Useight (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There's some major problems we have to face here. We're looking for active editors who are both helpful and knowledgeable, right? The issue is that while edit count is loosely correlated with experience and even more loosely with knowledge, there are many who can make lots of edits without being very knowledgeable about the relevant areas of Wikipedia people would need help with. I would assume, however, that anyone with a lot of edits would have to be knowledgeable about at least one thing, and that could be listed as their specialty. The other problem is helpfulness. I don't want to say bad things about anyone, but some people are not the most helpful or civil. Obviously bringing up each case and arguing about it wouldn't be productive, either. Finally, I have many times seen the concern that subjective measures should be avoided: in other words, either everyone who meets the edit count requirement must stay, or the category should be dissolved. I don't agree with this POV, but I have seen it a number of times. Enigma ^message 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hmm, it's true that edit count doesn't correlate directly with knowledge or desire to help. But it does correlate with amount of time spent on Wikipedia, giving them a greater probability to be on Wikipedia when a question is asked of them. Perhaps the thing to do is compile the list and then contact each editor and ask if they want to be on the list or not. And if they don't respond within a reasonable amount of time, say 24 hours, then they probably shouldn't be on the list, anyway. Useight (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that raw edit count from the wanabee Kate tool is very misleading. I made under 1,000 edits last month (indeed I've never made 1,000 edits in one month) but performed another 1,000 admin actions..... Pedro :  Chat  08:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So you want credit for your admin actions, huh? :D Well, we can't really do much about that. We'll just have to use edit count and give administrators leeway in this regard because they're supposed to be helpful anyway. Enigma ^message 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah? You show me the policy where it says I have to be helpful..... :) Pedro :  Chat  19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Location

There's getting to be a lot of editors for which I can't find a location. Any objections to removing editors with an unknown location from the list? It'll keep the list more concise while still providing information about how is likely to be available to provide a quick response. Useight (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Many editors want to reveal as little about themselves as possible. Maybe they'll reveal the timezone they're in if asked. I have an idea what time zone Balloonman is in, but I don't want to add it without his permission. Enigma ^message 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just been looking at userpages to determine where they're located. Some say, some don't. I'll keep adding users that don't specify a location, but I don't know if that would be as helpful as those whose location is listed, as least as for the purpose of this list. Useight (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of location why not just list a time frame using UTC time, as its not where a person is but when they frequent thats useful. Gnangarra 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be ideal, but I don't know when each editor edits, nor for how long. It'd be hard to make it even remotely accurate. I could list a timeframe that excludes 2AM to 7AM local time, which would probably be effective, but it'd be tedious to work that out. Useight (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means to use -4 UTC, -5 UTC, etc. instead of saying Eastern timezone, Central timezone, etc. Some may not know offhand what timezone they each correspond to, but everyone here would have to be familiar with UTC. If this becomes serious, by the way, we could have a section for personal comments where a user would comment on his/her normal schedule. For example, I'm typically most active at nights, although it does depend on the day of the week. Enigma ^message 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that replacing "location" with "-4" or "-5" would be counterproductive. The aim of this project is to give newcomers a quick way to find someone who can help them. I think they'd likely be more familiar with what time it currently is in different countries than they would be familiar with UTC. I'm not even sure how far behind UTC (which I think is the same as GMC), but I think I'm about -7 or -8. I'm going add a link to www.timeanddate.com. I find that site extremely helpful. Useight (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just updated myself on this, but agree that UTC time zone of activity is far more useful. I am active at UTC 07:00 - 16:00 if it helps! Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My thought was more time specific aka I'm around from 00:00 to 16:00 UTC, predominantly 00:00 to 04:00 and then 12:00 to 16:00. A UTC clock can be activated in gadget tab of preferences, and signature times are in UTC no matter where a person is the UTC time is the same for everyone. Where as if you say I'm in Oceania and edit in the period between 8 am and mid day and after 8pm until around midnight WST those needing the help will have to work out what time zone they are in then work out what time zone others are in before being able to find someone to help. Just to add to the confusion Australia has three main time zones Eastern, Central, and Western as well. Gnangarra 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we can do that. It's going to take each editor filling in the times they are usually available. But let's do that. Useight (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The question then becomes, how do we sort the list? Keep it geographical or based on time only? Useight (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that geographical has an instant mental association with it, instead of looking at time and numbers. When someone from the east coast sees another editor listed as such, that's a flag for, that's my time zone. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how UDT works out, so I just put it in my local time. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Notifying users

Just a thought, are you going to notify the people that have been added that they are here? Some people may not want to help out, and may not like having their names added to a "these people are active and knowledgeable" list. --Kbdank71 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will contact them. They can remove their names if they wish. Useight (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And if they don't respond, then they don't really belong on the list anyway, since it is suppose to be a list of easily reachable editors. Useight (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned this above. Enigma ^message 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Help adding names

If anyone has time and wants to do some tedious work, the names from User:Useight/Sandbox need to go into the tables at User:Useight/Highly Active. It's especially tedious because you have to look at each editor's userpage and determine where they're from, if possible. As per Wisdom89's rationale above, the names will remain sorted geographically. Useight (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - If you add a name into the Highly Active tables, please remove it from my sandbox. Useight (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. - I'll put a notice on the top of the page as to whether I'm currently adding names or not. If it says I am, please don't edit the article, as I don't want to edit conflict after adding 50 names. Useight (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to add the tag, but even if you edit conflict, you can just use the back button on most browsers and copy what you had. The tedious part is then you need to make the changes that the other person did as well. Enigma ^message 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so if I added 25 names and so did they, then that would be really annoying. Useight (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Back, copy what you added, back again, reload, edit, paste. Works great. --Kbdank71 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New plan

Okay, this is really tedious (as is the other option), but I like it better. I'm going to put a message on the talk pages of each editor remaining in User:Useight/Sandbox and User:Useight/Highly Active and ask them to add themselves to the Highly Active page if they so desire. Useight (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Malinaccier (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Would the time be in UTC or local time? Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking UTC would be best. That's what I did mine in. Useight (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Malinaccier (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One other question, are we planning on moving this page out of userspace? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to in a perfect world, but it will soon become like RFA; people will be clamoring to get in and getting angry when they can't...Malinaccier (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ideally it would be in the Wikipedia namespace. Other lists of active editors reside there, so hopefully this one could thrive there as well. Useight (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I got my message, and yes I'm aware of the project. :D (I kid. I know you intended to notify everyone on the list) Enigma ^message 01:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Switching it up yet again

Okay, I started sending out the messages to the people in Western and Central North America (the ones listed User:Useight/Highly Active) and felt like I was spamming people. Anyone have any better ideas as to getting the message out? Useight (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no viable alternative. My "vote" would be to move the page into the project space where it would get more attention. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, you could..errr..advertise this subpage at high activity spaces on the Wiki..I noticed a message at the Help Desk. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea what you've been doing, including sending messages to people like me. It's not like you're spamming to get attention to a non-Wiki cause, or trying to gain support for your side on a debate. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Privacy

Seeing as few if any of the individuals listed actually added themselves to this list, I wonder if you wouldn't mind replacing the location with just the time zone. Since the purpose of this list is to find admins active as a certain time, I don't see why we need specific cities and US states. And well, even though I'm sure you got this info by checking their userpage and past comments, sometimes aggregating all the info in one place makes the serial-stalker's job far too easy. MBisanz ^talk 06:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make the change for the North American editors, however, I'm not familiar with the other timezones. It may take me a while to figure out what timezone Fiji is in, for instance. I'll also point out that I didn't add anybody's city, if that's there, they did it themselves. And yes, I did get people's state base on their userpage. Useight (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, also apparently you never checked my userpage. :) MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I remember looking at it. However, I was going pretty quick. After a longer look, I see the userboxes about your location listed under "Web", so maybe that's why I missed it. Or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Useight (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, though, I'm getting familiar with a lot more people through this project. Useight (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot generated activity areas

I have generated the top activity areas based on user contribs for each user on this list and stored it here. If you want to copy any of it over, feel free, or if you want me to have my bot automatically fill it in, let me know. Right now, I am off to bed.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 08:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An excellent and fascinating piece of data, only soured with the undeniable misery that apparently one of my "top acivity areas" is User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide..... ;) Pedro :  Chat  10:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence it's my divine right to RfB you, right Pedro? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing. Perhaps the bot can fill it in once the list is shortened a bit. Can it add the items that aren't user talk or mainspace? Useight (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can. I had it do the top 5 WP space, 2 article/article talk space, and 2 user talk space because not every user is active in the WP space. But, yeah, I can make it only do the WP space. Just let me know (by responding here, or on my talk page) when and what you want my bot to fill in. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Great tool, thanks. Two things: 1)I don't know if it's intentional or a typo, but it lists AIV as AVI. 2)I guess all the ANs are listed under AN? Maybe it would be better to split them? I don't even know. Enigma ^message 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Two more: 1)Unfortunately, some editors reply to messages at their own talk pages, so it lists their talk page as a high activity area. That's not really that helpful. :) 2)There's some kind of error with a few of the areas. See Zzyzx11 and Koavf for two examples. Enigma ^message 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1) The bot generates the shortcuts automatically. WP:AVI is a valid shortcut to AIV. 2) Yes. It groups all subpages under the main area. 3) Yes, the bot lists the top two user talk pages as well. 4) Yes, there are some problems. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Help Desk

I appreciate the work that is going into this page; however I am worried that it is something that would be time-intensive to maintain, since editors are constantly coming and going at Wikipedia. Turnover is quite high, and even if you set up this page perfectly on one day, it would probably be completely different by the following year. A better solution for editors who need rapid help, is usually to post at Wikipedia:Help desk. It scales better, as there are always very active editors (whoever they may be at that time) who are monitoring that page. Questions posted at the Help Desk are often answered within minutes. --Elonka 11:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)`

I think that a bot could update it daily (or even hourly...). You could add yourself if you wanted to be included, and the bot would check everyone's activity, and remove/add as necessary. Majorly (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The list on the page is actually rather long right now, and I've got more users listed at User:Useight/Sandbox, but I think it will function better if it's more concise, so those editors that don't fill in their info will be removed from the list. Hopefully it will be chopped down to less than 100 editors whose editing schedules combined to 24/7. It would only be comprised of editors who aren't (likely) going to suddenly drop off the grid next Thursday. Although a bot could be useful. Useight (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder...

What the usefulness of listing acronyms next to names is if this page is aimed at new users. -- Naerii 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So the newcomers can learn what the acronyms stand for, I would assume.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha :P -- Naerii 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, excellent point. I hadn't even thought of that. I originally thought that acronyms would be better because they take up less space and make the table smaller, but writing them out might be better. Useight (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As this page gets larger it might be worth condensing it into subpages? I made a quick knockup of what I mean here: User:Naerii/example. -- Naerii 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Although this page does seem quite redundant to {{helpme}}. -- Naerii 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Implemented per Useight's request. -- Naerii 18:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody really ever uses {{helpme}}, whenever I check it, there's never anybody there. Useight (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

May I...

...add myself to this list? iMatthew 2008 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you're very active, your last 500 contribs go back to only April 19. Go right ahead and add yourself. Useight (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! iMatthew 2008 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What about these users: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs), Nikki311 (talk · contribs), ThinkBlue (talk · contribs), Zenlax (talk · contribs), NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) iMatthew 2008 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask them. -- Naerii 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I know GCF and TB (and I think Nikki) from around GAN; both are very good users. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

North America

It might be best to break the tables out by time zones. What is missing that I know off hand are HST Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time, AKST Alaska Standard Time, MST Mountain Standard Time, AST Atlantic Standard Time, NT Newfoundland Standard Time and Saint Pierre and Miquelon Standard Time. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll break it apart using that method. Useight (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern Standard Time"

Noticed that being used a lot, even though it's EDT now and will be for most of the year. Enigma ^message 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Highly active

Hi! I'll consider whether to add myself - I'll think about things and see if I will add myself to the list. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Location

Before too many people get used to this location and too many links are pointing here, maybe it should slip into the wiki space? MBisanz ^talk 15:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it. What do you suppose the page's name should be? WP:AVAILABLE? Useight (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VERYACTIVE? iMatthew 2008 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that should be the shortcut, the page name of "Highly Active Users" should be kept, but the shortcut should be WP:AVAILABLE, renaming a page to a shortcut is annoying as it makes it harder to adjust things down the road. MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the page has been moved and shortcuts added. Useight (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to move the subpages. MBisanz ^talk 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Was just gona say that. ;) iMatthew 2008 15:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and now I've done that, too. Useight (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Email: direct link?

It's not very helpful to new users to simply state that someone has email; is it possible to put a direct link in that field so that it shows up as [example@gmail.com Email], the way that "contact us" operates on corporate websites? Something like {{Email user}}? Skomorokh 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can set up emailuser to link that way, if you want a "real" email, try the instructions at Image:Nospam at.svg. MBisanz ^talk 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I lack the technical proficiency, but thanks for the suggestion. Is it plausible to have a bot convert all the "Yes" entries in the Email field to direct links which would lead to emailing the user, without revealing their address? Something like "For Username, if Email=Yes, replace Yes with {{direct email link|Username}}"? Skomorokh 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's my handy ctrl+p button :) -- Naerii 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Email link}} -- Naerii 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively we could ask people to fill in their names using {{User4}} which gives: Naerii (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Email link looks like it would work: do we have an available bot and consensus to implement it? The contribs link in User4 is superfluous and distracting for our purposes here, I think. Thanks for the suggestions! Skomorokh 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable tables

Can someone who knows what they're doing make the different timezones into collapsable tables? I was trying to figure out the formatting last night, but couldn't get it to work properly. Useight (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried here for Pacific. Is that what you meant? iMatthew 2008 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would do a better job, plus I have something I want to add and the page would get too long without the tables doing that. Useight (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done iMatthew 2008 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Style suggestion: avoid jargon

Given that this is aimed at new users, and users who lack sufficient understanding of Wikipedia processes, would it not be wise to avoid all jargon in the "Areas of expertise" field? If I am the kind of new user who comment on userpages with "help someone is deleting my articles for copyright violation I own the copyright ITS FROM MY WEBSITE", I will not be able to recognise from the description "I mostly work at WP:CSD, WP:COPYVIO and WP:OTRS" that this is the user I am looking for. Can we use plain English terms that neophytes will understand, such as in this case, "I work at speedy deletion, copyright problems and helping people communicate with Wikipedia officially"? Piped links are useful to new users, but WP:OMGWTFBBQ shortcuts are not. Thoughts? Skomorokh 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I commented on this above. I think that this is a very good idea. -- Naerii 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. That should be changed. Useight (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's get piping. Can someone whip up instructions to this effect for the main page? Actually, it would be probably be useful to have instructions for both new users and volunteers, i.e.

Looking for help? Select your region below to find a volunteer in your time zone who can assist you.

Volunteers: Please add yourself to the appropriate region and describe the areas you are willing to assist with in easily understandable terms.

Skomorokh 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? -- Naerii 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The location of everything is appropriate (neophytes first, see also, volunteers at the end). I'm not sure about the shouting at regulars (they generally read to the end of the line, and will grok the norms based on what everyone else has written) and the current way the text sizes change, but I'm sure it will be ironed out. Great work so far. Skomorokh 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I added that to the main page. iMatthew 2008 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are things centered? iMatthew 2008 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages'

I'd like to see a link along the lines of "Ask this user a question". At the moment we have all sorts of information about people but no obvious instructions for contacting them. -- Naerii 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, even more helpful than email I think (though complementary). Is there a template for it? Skomorokh 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Asia

The region of Asia is missing after the list of regions were moved to sub pages. Can someone look at it! --SMS ^Talk 17:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Naerii 18:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Same issue with Oceania :S Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I see it just fine o.O -- Naerii 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Oceania, but I just realized there is no Asia. iMatthew 2008 18:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find Asia on Useight's page, so I added my name to the Europe list as I am based in London while working on Asian articles. My name was never added. Would you mind telling me what happened there? Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible addition

I note that many editors have a little "I am on/offline" button on their pages. It might be useful to see if there would be some way of integrating them into the listing, so that editors in a real hurry could find someone online at that moment. I have no idea how to do that, though. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Would that not require a central datebase of online users? It's unrealistic to expect users, even highly active users, to "check in" and out on this page incessantly. Skomorokh 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What I was thinking about was the template some editors like User:Kevinalewis have on their pages. If we could adjust that template to include an "on-off" category or two, maybe an additional one for HAUs, then all someone would have to do to find someone currently active would be to go to that category, and see everyone logged on at that time. I hope that makes a little sense. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It look like Kevinalewis has to manually change his status, at least it appears so from the history of User:Kevinalewis/Status. If it's all manual, then my idea below is probably better. If it's automatic, then this idea is better. Useight (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of categories. Tricky to implement I expect: using User:Kevinalewis/Status as our model, we would need each participating editor to have a template that when they select "online", they are added to "Category:Online highly active users", and for a goodly proportion of HAU's to implement and regularly update their status. I doubt that you could get many HAUs to reliably use and update such a template, but I image you could find a non-trivial number of them so as to make it a useful scheme. It would be complementary rather than representative of this one, though. Skomorokh 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is User:StatusBot and it's clones. See this and User:StatusBot/Status/Cobi, which can be transcluded onto the page like this: According to StatusBot and Cobi's contributions, Cobi is currently offline. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another table

Okay, so here's my idea. The detailed user tables remain in the hidden tables that can be opened if the person with a question wants to see, but the page implements a schedule format, something like the one I've made at User:Useight/Sandbox. It makes it easier for the person to see if someone is likely to be online. This addresses the issue that it is hard to find who's online via the tables we currently have. Once we have the schedule table, they can easily see who's probably online and ask them the question. Or, if there are multiple people who are probably online, they can use the detailed table to determine who might have the most experience in the type of question they have. Useight (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Once that is implemented, then my brainchild is complete (unless other people think of more ways to improve it, of course). "It's alive!" Useight (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But, then again, if we can implement something like the discussion above, that would be even better. See, there are better ways than my original idea. And now I'm talking to myself. Useight (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sound good to me! That should be on the main page however, right? iMatthew 2008 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the best location, I just made the Mountain Time one because: 1) It's small; and 2) I'm in it. Wherever looks best, I guess. If you guys decide anything, that'll be fine, I can make the other tables, too, but I'm going to go eat, I'm really hungry. Useight (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Completed

Okay, I created schedules for each continent based on the times people said they edit. I hope it looks okay, but I'm sure it could use some tweaking. I also removed people from the list (mostly North America, for example), that didn't have a specific editing time. Do you guys think that is beneficial or a hinderance? I think the list is acceptably long now and that someone would very likely find an editor online. If you guys think it got too small, we can add back in the editors I removed. Let me know. But now my idea has come to fruition (hopefully it will be utilized). Useight (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done a fine job, but I'm a little sheepish to admit, I have no idea what those check marks indicate..well..that's not entirely true. I do, but the editing is somewhat confounding. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it's supposed to indicate when the editor is typically online. Perhaps something else should be used instead of checkmarks or maybe a short explanation? Useight (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a list maintained by a status bot which should only contain editors online at that time(I think somewhat same was suggested by Cobi) --SMS ^Talk 06:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be optimal, but I have no experience with any bots, so I can't implement that. If someone else can do it, great, but that's one part of this project I can't do. Useight (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a conversion link for UTC time and other standard time zones? Maybe that's my problem : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was using this one. Hope that helps. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Useight (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it help to put something like this somewhere on the page? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Or would this tweak to the tables be helpful (or just more confusing)? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

UTC TIME	00	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23
Local Time	07a	08a	09a	10a	11a	12p	01p	02p	03p	04p	05p	06p	07p	08p	09p	10p	11p	12a	01a	02a	03a	04a	05a	06a
User
Nihonjoe
Qyd
Useight

Actually, those are both great ideas. I can get those implemented a little later. P.S. - Your conversion from UTC to Mountain isn't right. I don't know if you just threw the times in randomly or not, but it needs to be implemented with the correct time: 13:00 UTC = 7AM Mountain. Useight (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I get it now. I used the link above with the assumption that Phoenix was in Mountain Time, but it's always on Mountain Standard Time, so that's where the difference lies. For the purposes of these charts, I don't know if that really matters or not, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have implemented the two changes at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users/North America, what do you guys think? Useight (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, big improvement I must say. I could never get used to reading UTC. I think it was an anomalous block in my brain. Anyway, good additions, the conversions in the table and the notification of time at the top are both good additions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Active/Inactive status

There is a bot at User:StatusBot which will update the current status of editors based on their last edit, presumably including logon. While it is inactive, a clone bot is in trial. Would those of you creating this page think it might be useful to maybe use it to indicate which editors are on/off line at any particular time? John Carter (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a status bot would be extremely helpful. However, the go-to-guy on this project, who happens to be me, doesn't know a thing about bots. If someone else can implement it, that would be great. Useight (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For this we can contact User:Cobi. --SMS ^Talk 20:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Europe

This edit removed some names. Enigma ^message 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I left the names in the details section, but could only place a limited number of individuals in the schedules section. Editors with schedules like, "Erratic", "Varies", "24/7", or "Whenever I feel like it" doesn't really bode well for the schedules table, as I had no idea what time periods needed to have checkmarks. If you think some of those I skipped should be in the schedule table, feel free to add them in. If we can get a bot that marks when each user is online in real time, we won't need the schedules table at all and all original names would just be listed in the details section. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Contactable"

I'm "contactable" (and could edit if absolutely necessary) for different hours that I actually edit. Would it be worthwhile using ticks for editing and, say, Image:Icon External Link E-Mail.png for when you're contactable by email but not actually active? Daniel II (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gurch

I'm guessing this is a joke? Enigma ^message 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be? I personally have edited at every hour in the day at some point over my two years here (though not in one long stretch). I'm sure there are others too, as in Gurch's case. Al Tally (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here. And when I add myself back to the list, I may choose to do the same. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But then that tells new users that you will always be available to respond to their needs at every hour of the day.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Then theres something wrong with the format! ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he is always available. I don't see a problem here. Al Tally (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the different colors are significant. Enigma ^message 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That should not have been reverted. --Charitwo ^talk 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added it back, and hope no one else removes it. Al Tally (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked Keeper why he removed it on his talk, fyi. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm slowly catching up to this. My bad, I didn't mean to revert Gurch. I thought I was only reverting Simpsonfan. I've been busy elsewhere, and made a mindless revert. Please accept my apologies. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Filling in all the hours defeats the purpose. How is it helpful to someone trying to find an online user if the checkmarks now mean, "a time that the user was on, once, a year and a half ago"? It needs to be times that you can be expected to be online. Nobody is expected to be online around the clock. There's been times for all of us that we've stayed awake until 4AM editing, but that shouldn't be on this table, not unless we consistently edit at that time. Going through the contribs of both Gurch and Gurchzilla, there are huge gaps in editing. The point of this table is to help people find an online user, not to try to look cool by having all the boxes checked. Sorry for sounding so blunt, but this could set a precedent that defeats the entire purpose of this project. Useight (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So how do we fix the problem then? I'm on wiki and irc at different hours of the day. I haven't readded myself, not because I don't want to help, but because the current format is itself misleading. I work (at my job) at odd times, so I may be on more often now, but not so much later. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The best way to fix this is to figure out how to use StatusBot, or one of its derivatives, to keep track in real-time, who is online and who isn't. Then we can do away with the checkmark table altogether and just use the details table (the hidden ones) with another column for online/offline. I'm going to work on getting that done as soon as I get a chance (which will be probably in about an hour). If I can't get that going, then I'm not sure what the best solution is. Useight (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Real-time online status

Okay, I finally got it. It took a lot of work, but now the tables have real time updates (albeit it lags behind reality by ten or fifteen minutes). It involved adding everyone to [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] and creating a page for each user that Soxbot93 V can use. It was serious work, but I think I have all the kinks worked out. I've only done it for North America so far, I can do the rest tomorrow. Useight (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks! I'm going to create the pages now. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a simple template and went ahead and implemented it on the North America page to make the status a bit easier to read. Hope you don't mind. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that looks great. Useight (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, question, why is this all hidden? See the show button. Might be difficult for new persons to see. Also, I'll be bold and make a change to the template, if you don't mind. How does the status work, by the way? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 11:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The status thing was a nightmare. Everyone talked about getting the real-time status implemented, but nobody had any ideas on how to do it. Cobi suggested StatusBot, so I looked into it. It turns out StatusBot is inactive, but SoxBot V is a clone that does the same thing. And it turns out that SoxBot V was very recently approved after being in trial. So I figured out how to make SoxBot V do the work. I added all North American members of HAU to [[[[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]]. SoxBot V looks at all the members of that category to see if they have edited within the last 15 minutes. It then updates the contents of [[User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME]], which I had to create for all North American HAUs, to either "online" or "offline". The table here at HAU checks the contents of those pages and displays that. Useight (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And that is all hidden because it's sill on the old format, which I will fix today. They should all look like the North American page later. Useight (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work. Enigma ^message 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For some reason it thinks I'm offline. I did edit something 20 minutes ago. Maybe the lag is longer than 15 minutes. Enigma ^message 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of finicky, if you have a 15 minute gap in your editing (you had a 19 minute gap), it probably won't catch change you to online. Useight (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There it goes, it shows you as online right now. Useight (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec -_-)

• /me notes that North America is on the top of the list, and was changed first. Heh. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed something about a workaround for interval time. Enigma ^message 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Userbox?

I want a userbox to put HAU members in a user category (unless there already is a cat). VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So far there isn't one, but that's a great idea. If you're creative and want to design it, that'd be great. Otherwise perhaps the userbox design can be up for grabs. Useight (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it tonight then. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate organizational standard

Maybe, instead of organizing based on where someone is from, which might often be irrelevant to the discussion, the pages could be organized at least somewhat based on fields of interest/knowledge or relevant areas of wikipedia (specific policies, etc.)? I think in general someone looking for help on a physics article would find knowing which editors know something about the subject under discussion more useful than knowing where they're from. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have the automatic online/offline status working, you're right. The tables should be sorted in some other way. And there's no longer a need for the "active times" column any more. If anyone has any particular suggestions, let me know here and I'll get it set up. I've got to run off to class here pretty soon, so I don't have time to start something big at the moment, but when I get back I'll be able to get some stuff done. Useight (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The 10 basic categories used by the 1.0 Editorial Team in the Wikipedia:Release Version might work best, with individuals indicating maybe High, Moderate, or Low competency in each field, with maybe another listing for conduct, policies and guidelines, and maintenance functions. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if we use those 10 categories (Art, Geography, History, Math, etc), HAU will be kind of a duplicate of the Reference Desk. Perhaps we could have categorized something like:

1. Vandalism (WP:AIV, WP:RCP)
2. Deletion (CAT:CSD, WP:XFD, WP:NPP)
3. Protection (WP:RFPP)
4. Usernames, Userpages, Accounts (WP:UAA, WP:UPH, WP:SSP)
5. Images (WP:MCQ)
6. Adminship (WP:RFA, WP:ADMINCOACH, WP:RFR
7. Biographies (WP:BLP, WP:BLPN)
8. Noticeboards (WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:VP)
9. Maintainence (WP:DEAD, WP:GA, WP:FA)
10. Disputes (WP:3RR, WP:DISPUTE, WP:3O, WP:RFM, WP:AE, WP:COI)
11. Bots (WP:RBA, WP:BOT)

That covers a lot of different areas, perhaps general editing topics (like those 10 you mentioned) can be worked in somehow. Of course the ones I listed above can be expanded or merged, depending on how we want it. Useight (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be possible to do both. I hadn't thought of the duplication of the reference desk. Maybe two columns, one listing the various functions you displayed above, and the other displaying the individuals' "specialties"? I think the latter would still be useful in finding someone who can, for instance, maybe be a reputable source to say a certain edit to an article does qualify as vandalism, given that person's knowledge of the subject. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm in the middle of revamping the page for North America, but it's after 2AM, so I'm going to hit the sack. I'll finish it up in the morning. Useight (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New Format

Okay, the new format is finished. Take a look at the North America page and tell me what you guys think. Does it make it easier for a new editor to find someone who can help them with a specific problem? Compare it with the old version, found here. Useight (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. My only concern is that an editor that is perusing the site will likely click on the "first available" editor. When a list is alphabetical, User:Acalamari is gonna get a lot more inquiries. Not that he can't handle them, but to be fair to him and his workload, I kinda liked the timezone ordering better. Nice work though, Useight. The status bot is especially useful. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One column that's blatantly missing... um what about people who do article work??! Al Tally (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fall under "disputes?"  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - A "Content" heading would encompass Referencing, Copyediting, and so forth, which people might need help with as well. I'd also add that a button to edit the talk page of a random, online member of a region would be awesome, but I have no idea where I would begin with such a thing. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what if we leave it broken by topics (vandalism, deletion, etc), but have it separated by timezones so Acalamari won't get bombarded? As for content, we can probably fit one more column, as long as nobody writes too much in there. Or perhaps another page for content that we usually work with? I just don't want this to turn into a duplicate of the Reference Desk, which answers questions about content. They have a history desk, computing desk, language desk, humanities desk, etc for random questions like, "I stained my couch with grape juice, what can I do to get it out?" Useight (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But I'm heading out to Managerial Economics 301 (excruciatingly boring), but I'll implement any suggestions when I return. Useight (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's a small sample of a format change w/ sortable columns, and an email column and content, too. This would help eliminate the concern of Keeper76's, possibly. Thoughts? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Version 1

Editor	Admin?	Status	Vandalism	Deletion	Protection	Usernames, Userpages, Accounts	Images	Noticeboards	Maintenance	Disputes	Bots	Content	Email
Majoreditor	No	5[[:user:statusbot/status/majoreditor]]	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y
Malinaccier	Yes	4Offline	Y	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	Y
MBK004	Yes	4Offline	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
Milk's Favorite Cookie	No	4Offline	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y

Version 2

Editor	Admin?	Status	Vandalism	Deletion	Protection	Usernames, Userpages, Accounts	Images	Noticeboards	Maintenance	Disputes	Bots	Content	Email
Majoreditor	No	5[[:user:statusbot/status/majoreditor]]									Y	Y
Malinaccier	Yes	4Offline	Y				Y					Y
MBK004	Yes	4Offline										Y
Milk's Favorite Cookie	No	4Offline										Y

OMG, that's beautiful. I stand in awe of your technical prowess, Useight and Jauerback....complete awe. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

/me thinks Jauerback likes the letter M. Rudget (Help?) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So it would appear. Looks good otherwise, though having so many no's might be a bit cluttered. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. {{y}} may be better than either image transclusion or {{yes}}. Rudget (Help?) 18:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Every box needs something though, for the sorting, doesn't it? And I like the letter M as well. Mainly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort of - empty fields are parsed as nulls, so they get sorted properly. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Still sortable with {{N}} and {{Y}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tis a beaut! Thanks for the clarification as well on Sorting, UEZZ, I was unawares. Useight will (hopefully) be pleasantly surprised by all the activity of his highly active users!  :-)

BTW, if you take out all the {{N}}s, it will still be sortable. Oh, and I don't really know why I picked "M", to be honest. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's still sortable, I wonder if it wouldn't look a bit cleaner (and less like nobody's doing anything) to not have the N template in there, similar to Useight's design? Thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Two versions now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I'm all for version two! Much cleaner, less forboding. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Could also add a column for leaving a message on a user's talk page. Example:

Leave a message.

Maybe too much? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but something else would hafta go, or the columns made narrower. The box is already wider than my IE window, causing a horizontal scroll bar on this page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things simpler, why not have the editor column consist of a signature, a piped user talk, or just a Wisdom89 (talk · contribs · count) (as an example)? 20:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that looks amazing! Sortable columns was a brilliant idea. I will now forever brag that I admin coached Jauerback, the formatting genius. Useight (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go ahead and use Version 2 and use the piped talk page link, something like: Useight (talk). We need to keep it from getting too wide for the screen, so the Useight (talk · contribs · count) might be too wide and we don't want to make people scroll horizontally. Or, perhaps the best idea would just have it link straight to the talk page, since that's what they'd probably want anyway, like [[User talk:Useight|Useight]], that might be better. Useight (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I support ver 2 as well. Very aesthetically pleasing, and organized. Also, a link straight to the talk page was what I was getting with my earlier comment about piping. I think that's best. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, it took quite a bit of work, plus my Internet connection went down for a few minutes, but I got Version 2 implemented on the North America page. Now we just need to get the editors to actually come and fill in their checkmarks and make sure everything is accurate. Useight (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New userbox, needs category

This editor is listed at Highly Active Users, and is willing to provide you with assistance and advice.

I made this userbox for members, but it needs a category (as does the whole project). It's related to Template:User helper. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The userbox looks great. I have no idea about categorizing it, maybe someone else can chip in there. Useight (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Highly Active Users created, which will be populated by this userbox. --SMS ^Talk 07:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff, guys. I'll add it immediately. Enigma ^message 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

95 pages in that category already. Also, adding the userbox doesn't add to the cat. It was my understanding that it was intended to do so. I'll add myself manually. Enigma ^message 08:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I got it wrong, VanTucky! can you please add the following text to your userbox so it can populate this category.

 <includeonly>[[Category:Highly Active Users|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>

SMS ^Talk 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If everyone likes the userbox, wouldn't it be more practical to move it to a subpage of WP:HAU now? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving it to a HAU subpage is fine with me. I also tried to do the includeonly, but I didn't see myself show up in the category. Will someone please take a look at this who has a clue (i.e. not me)? VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After a few screw-ups, it's done... I think. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Content

As for the content column, I don't think having a checkmark there is very useful, I mean, doesn't everyone work on content to some degree? I'd guess that nearly everyone would have a checkmark in that column. Perhaps it would be better to have a very short description of where we usually edit, like just a couple of words. Like mine could say: "Nintendo, NFL, Disney". Useight (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are some users that never do (I'd name names but that'd be cruel). As for me, I edit on all kinds of topics, from John Lennon to Orange to Nannie Doss to Big Brother. It'd be pretty useless for me saying what I edit, as it changes from one day to the next. Al Tally (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking that perhaps content would be better on a different page. But I don't know, perhaps a checkmark will be fine, but I'm thinking that almost all editors would have that checked, essentially defeating the purpose of having the column. Useight (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I have another class to attend, but when I return I'll get Version 2 implemented on the North America page, since it's settled that we need sortable columns. I'll also re-divide it back up into timezones instead of alphabetically due to it being pointed out that Acalamari might get asked too many questions, soley for being first alphabetically. Useight (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a prolific content editor. Admitting it right now. Never have been. I wouldn't pass an RfA in today's RfA environment. I wouldn't have that checked on my box. I also wouldn't consider it "cruel" to name "non-content" editors. They have other names, like Gnome, Faerie, Copyeditor, whatever. I've created only like 6 articles, all of them paltry and unattended. I've CE'd a couple of FAs and GAs. Done work with WP:DPL, and every time I close an WP:AFD as "keep", I get to remove a tag from an article. Hope that's sufficient for your standards Maj-Al-orly-tally.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to having "content" removed as a "specialty". If someone is looking for admin help, they are likely looking for resoltuion/guidance with a dispute, or with a technical issue. If it is related to content, they can surmise that someone that has a green check on "dispute" could be of help, or the can go to the RefDesk, HelpDesk, ANI, article talkpages....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Same problem--its much too broad. I';m not sure its even useful. I dont wikignome, but Ido do work on the content noticeboard.Perhaps we need a vcategory for them--in particular we needa category for BLP. DGG (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I originally did have a category for BLP, but going through people's self-written "specialities" now viewable in the old format, very few people actually listed it. Having only 3 or 4 mention it out of 80 in North America didn't really justify in my mind using up a lot of horizontal space with "Biographies", being such a long word, and making people scroll further to the left for a column that almost nobody was using. Useight (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Bot

Should we set up for a bot to automatically archive a section after 1 week or so? King iMatthew 2008 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably should. I don't know how to implement an archiving bot, though, bots really aren't my forte. Useight (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But they are mine ;) ( Done) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. Useight (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More to the world than North America.....

I'd like to point out, in case no one has noticed. Why has only North America bee re done, while every single other continent hasnt been done? I know this site is in America, but come on. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really time-consuming to change everything over I'd imagine. Let's give Useight a little time. Malinaccier (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its going to take me some time, but I expect to have it today. I have to take two quizzes for my Geology class before midnight (Mountain time), so I'm going to get those out of the way and then tackle the rest of the world. Sorry for the delay, the other continents are definitely not inferior, I just did my home continent first. Useight (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, bibliomaniac15 implemented the new format for Oceania, and I implemented it for South America, Africa, and Asia. All that's left is Europe, and I may do that tonight, but perhaps not until tomorrow morning. I'm going to take a break. Useight (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am now most of the way through implementing all the changes for Europe, but it's again after 2AM, so I'll finish it up in the morning. Useight (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all the continents have been updated to the new format and all listed editors have been informed that they should add themselves to [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] and make sure their checkmarks are accurate. Useight (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work Useight ( even though us Europeans are left to the end, you would nearly think Americans had something against us ;) ) Good job, I hope this page can become active and well-used; thanks for all you've done. Regards, EJF (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I left Europe until the end because there are so many editors there. South America, Africa, and Asia were the easy ones. So many Europeans running around...:P Useight (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you aren't going to reveal the plan :p first we're going to overthrow Jimbo, then we will break Uncle Sam ;) EJF (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. Your secret is safe with me. Useight (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What could we have against Europe? You brought us Doctor Who. Nuff said.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And two World Wars. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who, don't even mention that monstrosity–it's one reason to avoid BBC 1 on Saturday evening! And you can't blame the antics of some Bosnian rebels and a mad Austrian on us Brits! EJF (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Monstrosity? Why, it's downright brilliant!--.Koji†Dude ^(C)17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

David Tennant is a decent actor, but the hype and "fanboy"ness surrounding the whole show gets on my nerves. It's only a TV show for gawd's sake! And while I'm in this hole I'm going to keep digging and complain about Star Trek and Star Wars, over hyped American nonsense (sorry for the millions of fanboys I have most likely now offended ;) ) EJF (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :/ --Koji†Dude ^(C) 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear they're going to take the TARDIS back to the 1940s and visit with Abbott and Costello. The episode will be called "Dr. Who's on First". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't be as good as when he met shakespear.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing Will offered to help the Doctor punch up some of the dialogue on the show. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Status problem

I think the complete lack of functionality with the whole online/offline thing is a huge problem for this. The ability to do it would be great, but in the meantime I think the misleading status messages cause more harm than not having them at all. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What is bothering me about it, is that I am contantly online, but sometimes I am just not editing, but I'm here. But my status is changed to offline anyway. King iMatthew 2008 21:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the same thing happens to me. It makes me feel a uncomfortable, like unless I edit every ten minutes I'm basically shun from the eyes of anyone viewing the project page. Even when I do edit, and it finally shows up after however many minutes, I'm already gone doing something else.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing? I'd like to do it. King iMatthew 2008 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Buisness stuff. You wouldn't understand.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you meant another approach to the status thing. King iMatthew 2008 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant once the friggin' thing finally says I'm online, I'm already away from the computer and socializing.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem I've noticed - there's a lag for the status bot to update one's activity - and the moment you cease editing, yet still coast on Wikipedia, you're read as "offline". While a tremendous idea, it should probably just be eliminated if it's going to be inaccurate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could just stop the bot, go to our respective online/offline pages and edit them ourselves as soon as we log on/off?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why don't everyone himself edits his status by going to this page, when logging in and off. SMS ^Talk 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It'd be really tedious to update manually. Even with the lag, it does a pretty good job. I mean, when I'm editing, I don't usually stop for 15 minutes until I'm ready to stop for an hour or two and play Crysis. If we reverted back to the "times usually editing", that's okay, but I think that only makes things more complicated for the person looking for help. I think the bot does the best job. Useight (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to do it manually for myself, is there a way I can do this? King iMatthew 2008 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. On your userpage, you'll find this text: [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]]. Remove it. Then, when you are online, go to User:StatusBot/Status/IMatthew and change the text to "online" without the quotes and when you're going offline change it to "offline", again without quotes.

However, if you're interested in customizing the way the bot does the work, see my long comment a few sections above. Useight (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

why not use this and in the HAU page switch User:StatusBot/Status/"user name" to Userpage/status like I did here Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

schedule

I think we till need a column for approximate schedule. I do not want to use cluebot. I dont work continuously--if I have not posted in 15 minutes it does not mean I am not around. DGG (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that brings up a good point in that some users will not be actively editing, but would still be checking their talk pages. And, just FYI, we're not using ClueBot, we're using SoxBot V, which just recently got approved. I think the answer to this quandry has been provided by User:Xenocidic. He has his set up to show "online" if he's edited within 30 minutes, "Recent" if he has edited within 2 hours, and "offline" if he hasn't edited in more than 2 hours. For the code he's implemented, it's currently near the bottom of my talk page, but he's struck it out. But it should still work. I don't want to implement it HAU-wide personally, because I'm not a good coder and will probably mess everything up. Plus if we use his method, the instructions for volunteers section on the main HAU page will get much more complex, I think. However, it's probably a good alternative for those who have an editing style like yours, not always making edits, but still available. Useight (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be handled properly now by {{Truestatus}} (that's why I struck out the code, because I figured a way to template-fy it), I think Cobi implemented it HAU-wide as well. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Table template

I have created a table template and have implemented it over at WP:HAU/NA#Eastern_Time. Feel free to revert if you like the expanded table format. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cosmetically I see the difference, but is there another fundamental difference that I a missing in this new format? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ease of changing the row formats (without having to change every one), and it looks a lot nicer in the code, much easier to understand, too. You don't have to scroll up to the top to find the order of the fields, then scroll down to the middle somewhere to find your own entry ... and each entry is one line long, not several lines long. By the way, I finished adding it to all the HAU subpages now. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks for explicating Cobi. Excellent work as usual. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Online/offline pictures

Just a cosmetic suggestion, since we now use "Recently online" and (Image:Ledorange.png), do we want to replace the online and offline pictures with (Image:Ledgreen.png) and (Image:Ledred.png) for consistency? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Boldly done, feel free to revert if there was a particular reason to use the voting symbols. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. Nice job. Useight (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Status template to show status along the top of your userpage

Feel free to use {{Statustop}} to display your status along the top of your user/usertalk page. (Usage notes and example display in the template documentation) xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried this and it made the clickables in the top right corner unclickable. I even changed their position to 130 right instead of 30 right, and my efforts were fruitless. You can see the code on my user page (I can't get it to post correctly here). Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just add an |offset=300 or so. [1]. Tweak as desired. Best, xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest an improvement to this nifty gadget? I'd like to see a feature attached to this notifier (in the form of a link or a button) to change the status to "online" or "offline". It could even be as simple as clicking a tiny red or green dot. This would be very useful, and would be as simple as logging in or out, without actually doing so. The purpose? Well, setting it to online would wake up the sensor to let it know you're online, and setting it to offline (even more useful) would allow others to know you're not even at your computer (because two hours is two hours too late). Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it will conflict with StatusBot (as soon as you made the edit to show you were offline, statusbot would think you were online... I can think of a workaround but it'll take me a while to hack it together) If you want, you can modify the template to show you "Offline" after 15 minutes of no activity by using the following parameters - {{Statustop|901|900}}. Hersfold has already put together a solution that does exactly what you want, see User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate. (I'd basically be plundering everything from there to incorporate it into stautstop). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the tables have been forced to use statusbot; I used to have my status link to Hersfold's template. I guess I need to go back to Chris G Bot 3 Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you could ask Cobi to add another customization parameter. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 03:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, just transclude your own status page into User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME and remove yourself from the StatusBot category. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I got StausBot to leave mine alone. I think it was because I yelled at him.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're onto something, KojiDude. What would it take to make some sort of switch template that changes this text automatically when you click a button? Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that tough at all, just plunder what Hersfold has done here and point it towards the StatusBot template area. Make sure you remove yourself from the StatusBot's cat as that's why it stopped bothering Koji dude (also because he yelled at it). (Heck, you don't even have to modify Hersfold's template, you could just transclde your own userpage status into your StatusBot area). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I will just use Chris G Bot 3, since I do have IRC access, I already thought about transcluding, but I still want to use the bot. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Requirements

Okay, I think it's time some concrete requirements be solidified for inclusion at HAU. I don't want us to be a cabal, but I also don't want the list to be too cluttered, which would make it difficult to manage and harder for a new user to find help. Right now the requirements say, "If you have more than 500 edits a month, consider yourself highly active, somewhat knowledgeable about Wikipedia, have a predictable editing schedule, and are willing to help new editors with questions and advice, feel free add yourself to the appropriate region.

Exact criteria are still being shaped."

Let's go ahead and hammer out something more precise. Is 500 edits what we want? 750? 1000? Is the "predictable editing schedule" still necessary? What about the subjective? Trust? Civility? And why is the word "to" missing in "feel free add yourself"? Oh, yeah, I wrote that last part, I'll fix it. Useight (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a passing comment, I consider myself highly active because most of the day I sit infront of my watchlist like I'm having a staring contest with it (the high point is when I hit refresh after 5 minutes zomg refresh!!) but I don't rack up 500 edits a month. But, if that's the required criteria thingy, I'd be happy to remove myself. Also, the "feel free add yourself" bit was hilarious. :-D --Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly why it's so difficult to come up with the requirements. If they're too lofty, we lose valuable contributors, but if they're too loose then people who perhaps should't be on the list (as has been brought to my attention several times) will put themselves on and make the list hard to manage and navigate. But aside from hard and fast criteria, the only other methods I could think of, and didn't really like either one, were to let anybody add themselves without question or have some sort of deciding committee, but that sounded, to me, way too much like a cabal. Useight (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could just personally select the volunteers you want in the project and invite only them? It'd be like a party, or a SWAT team.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing that would probably require that I move the project back into my userspace, kind of like NoSeptember's admin project, which I suppose could work theoretically, but that seems like a sure-fire way to get a lot of people mad at me, especially if I was handpicking people from my own personal discretion. Useight (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The tough question is how does one gauge if another user is "helpful"? How does one even do that for themselves? I mean, that's what this list is intended for, to be able to get an idea of which users consistently have a "staring contest with their watchlists" and are valuable contributers to the project. How do we measure that? Earlier I saw some edit warring about removing a user. That's terrible, and rather insulting. Regardless, edit count is the easiest meter stick for activity, but, that doesn't necessarily positively correlate all that well with "helpful", or, to be frank, able to help in any meaningful way. Personally, I don't consider 500 edits a month all that "active". Active would be closer to 1000, but, then that probably excludes quite a few editors here. Perhaps we can get a good idea of "who belongs on the list" (man that sounds elitist) by their contributions. If people work at the help desks, there you go. If somebody just reverts vandalism with Huggle all day, well, sorry, but it's not impressive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit taken aback at being taken off the list after adding myself without being informed as to the reason. I am another who doesn't meet the (now) stated requirements, falling short of the 500 edit threshold in some months. Yet, I am online everyday, at consistent hours, and am one of the most active long term contributors to various help pages such as the help desk and new contributors help desk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Useight removed you because you never filled in the details. Enigma ^message 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, and here's our problem - a user that doesn't meet the threshold of an arbitrary number, yet is an asset due to time spent editing and helping others. Perhaps it's the name of the "group" that is misleading. Highly active does not equal valuable and helpful. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I found that, Fuhgettaboutit, you added yourself here and I removed your entry, along with a bunch of others' here. I thought I had informed everyone on their talk pages that incomplete entries would be removed, but I guess yours fell through the cracks. Sorry about that. Useight (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw here you suggested only adding people with a registered email, but I don't think that's quite fair to those that personal reasons for not having email, but are regular contributors and quickly respond to queries on their talk page. I suppose I'm an example in this case. Spencer^T♦C 01:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That was just an example of possible criteria, and it doesn't look like we're going to instigate anything like that, so don't worry. Useight (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in most cases users will have enough discretion to figure out whether they are "active" or not. If it chances that they aren't active for some time (say, 2 weeks), they can be easily removed and reinstated when they return. If they aren't incredibly active, I don't think it would cause an extraordinary amount of harm. Our main sectors of editing, the US, Europe, and Oceania, have plenty of other members available to handle any requests. bibliomaniac15 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I agree with bilbiomaniac. Come to think of it, I don't really understand what the problem would be in having lots of people listed. Personally, I'm planning at least a week or two of absence during the summer, and the last thing on my mind is this project. Not because it isn't important, but because there's about 20 other editors in the Central Time zone to pick up the slack (if there is any to pick up :/ ). The more the merrier, right?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 01:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I just brought it up because some users had asked me about it. We can go ahead and just let it take its natural course and grow however it will. I do agree that the more the merrier, and the increased likelihood that someone will be found online, but if the list got too long, like hundreds of entries, it'd be hard to manage. But, yeah, let's just let anybody add themselves and if we notice that someone has gone inactive, we can just remove them. Useight (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

QED Bibliomaniac. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Regional Talk Pages

In the next few minutes, I'm going to redirect the regional talk pages (such as Wikipedia talk:Highly Active Users/North America and the like) to this talk page, so that questions about region-specific issues will have greater visibility, and so that discussion is centralized. We can always un-redirect if needs be. Just an FYI, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Users with no checkmarks

There's a number of users without any specialties listed (i.e., they have no indicative checkmarks in their row). Is anyone opposed to me removing those users from the list and sending them a message? Useight (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be better to just sent them a message first, perhaps they simply haven't gotten around to it. If they do not respond in a certain time-frame then I'd remove them. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)}

Okay, I have sent them each a message. If they don't update their entries within a couple days, we'll just remove them. Useight (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort by status?

What about sorting the lists by status (online/recently online/offline) ? Would need some "default sort" tweaking, though. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean, that the tables would automatically rearrange based on the detected status of the individual? Another Cobi task if you ask me. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! ;> xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is impossible without modifying site-wide javascript. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is unpossible, can we at least re-tool it so when users sort by status manually "Online" shows up at the top (rather than recently online) ? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Added hidden sorting numbers. Tweak as desired, or if I broke anything. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work perfectly, nice job. Useight (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Specifics

Okay, I have received another request for some more specific criteria for admission to HAU, this time regarding recent blocks. What is the community's feelings towards including "No recent blocks" in the criteria? I'm on the fence on this one and can empathize with both points of view, so let's open a discussion on the matter. Useight (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how a recent block would affect the ability of the editor in question to deliver sound advice. A block doesn't necessarily reflect ignorance of policy. Although, I do see the point of the opposite side - these should be users in relatively "good standing" with the community. I just want to steer very clear of the cabalism or elitism that may become associated with this page. My recommendation is this: If you've been blocked in the last month, then no. Longer than that? You're fine. Multiple offenses? Extend it to two months. Just my thoughts. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Depends what the block is for. If it's an NPA or in-civility issue then they should receive a firm "Nope!" (and probably a "Here's your sign"). But if it's a 3RR or something of the like, its not necessarily reflective of their character, so its irrelevant to being Active and Helpful.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The one that was brought to my attention was for sockpuppetry. And I, too, do not want to make this page look like a cabal. Useight (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, the main thing here IMO would be specifics. What was the sock used for?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As the one who raised this with Useight - at the risk of being incivil, not assuming good faith etc etc I'll name the user who triggered this concern; it's SimpsonsFan08, today renamed StewieGriffin!, who added himself to HAU as one of his first actions after returning from an indefblock for abusive socking (he was caught creating a sock nominator in his RFA), has made virtually no mainspace edits since being unblocked, and nominated himself for RFA three times in the past month; I'm concerned that a good-faith newbie could stumble across him, be given some very bad advice, and end up getting themselves blocked through no fault of their own. (See User talk:Xp54321 for a fairly similar case of this happening only yesterday.) — iridescent 22:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At Adopt-a-User (which does similar work), we had a similar dilemma and used 3 months as a time threshold. xenocidic (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case I'd say don't include him for a few months so he can prove he knows how to provide adequite and accurate advice.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Simpsonfan's behavior has been egregiously unacceptable, despite his contrite apologies. I agree with Iridescent, I don't want potentially sour advice being flung around and hitting new user's squarely in the face. I suppose, then, that this means there should be some sort of block criteria set in place. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind that not all cases are this bad. For example, someone could be temporarily banned for repeatedly uploading images without stating their license. (You have to admit, copyright is a difficult area to learn the ropes.) I would say the most you could do to this user is say they are not allowed to put a check mark under "Images" until a certain predetermined number of consecutive legal uploads are made and a certain predetermined period of time has passed. By the way...no hard feelings toward SF8, but I really don't think that he belongs on this list (at least not this year), unless you add some sort of Wall of Shame section. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone was blocked multiple times for image uploading issues, I wouldn't be happy to have them helping out questions from new users in general. You don't get blocked on your first offense, and if you can't learn the policy even after a block, you probably need a bit more tenure before we can have clueless noobies going to ask you questions. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiBreaks and semi-WikiBreaks

I got to thinking last night, What would happen if a HAU became inactive?

The answer that seemed most logical was this: Someone would notice this user had a very low activity level and would remove that user's name from the list.

If the user was simply just a user with a medium or low activity level, this action would make sense. However, consider the following circumstances:

Jim, a HAU, realizes too late that he won't be able to edit Wikipedia for the next few weeks. Unfortunately, it's too late for him to put up a WikiBreak template, and is unable to get to a computer again until his break ends. He arrives back at his userpage after the break to find his name removed from the HAU list.

My proposition is that someone (who knows how to create templates) should prepare a notice for users removed from the HAU list. It should include the following information at minimum:

Because of your recent low level of activity on Wikipedia, you have been removed from the list of Highly Active Users. If you are taking a WikiBreak or semi-WikiBreak, remember to add yourself back to the list when your activity level returns to normal. The code removed is as follows: {{WP:HAU/U|Bob the Wikipedian|N|Y|N|N|N|N|Y|N|Y|N|N|Y}}

Any opinions? Criticisms? Improvements? Questions? Takers? Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is similar to how I notify inactive adopters. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 13:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That works, and the use of the template makes it incredibly easy to insert and remove a name as needed. Good call. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added the additional parameter |wikibreak=Y or |disabled=Y which will remove the user from the list but not from the source code, so all that needs to be done to reinstate them is to remove the added parameter. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I gather, from the comments above, that someone has created this template and that I am either too blind to see it or that everyone knows where it's at. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The template is {{WP:HAU/U}}. I just added the additional parameters to make it behave differently. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good timing, and it seems to work just fine. I'm on a semi right now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Semi. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Retired user

We have User:Basketball110 at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users/North America. Recently, he retired and said he will never come back as stated on his user page. Should we remove his name now, or leave his name for a while longer? -- RyRy5 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust the user's word first. Remove them. If they return, they are easily added back. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wisdom. I'll remove him from the list. -- RyRy5 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Useight (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Useight. But if the user comes back, do we add him back to the list, or does the unretired user adds himself back to the list? -- RyRy5 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do would be to inform him of his removal so he can re-add his entry himself. Useight (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. User:Basketball110 has been removed from the list. I doubt he will come back due to what has been heppening to him though. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)