Wikipedia talk:Highly Active Users

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)

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)