I have been concerned for some time about a problem with this list. A large number of accounts on this list have not edited for quite a while, which means that there is a likelihood that users wanting help will post to one of these accounts and never get an answer. For example, the account Wikipedian2 last edited on 15 September 2009. During the following 12 months there were 13 requests for help to this account's talk page, all from editors with no previous history of contact with Wikipedian2, and it seems likely that most if not all of them came because Wikipedian2 was listed here. Three of those editors never edited again, presumably having given up after waiting in vain for the help which the system had promised them. It is likely that there will be others in the same situation with requests to other accounts on this list. In addition, the list includes editors who do not seem to have completely left Wikipedia, but are now editing so infrequently that perhaps their inclusion on the list is not helpful. It seems that anyone posting a request for help should be able to expect a response within a few days at the most, so perhaps we should regard any account which does not edit at least once a week as too irregular to be helpful. How big a problem is this? Well, when I checked about a week ago, I found the following situation:

There were 110 entries on the list. Of these 110, 31 had not edited in the last year, including some who had not edited for over three years. 61 had not edited in the last month. 3 accounts on the list had been indefinitely blocked for eighteen months or longer, one of them since August 2008. Several (I did not count) had actually announced that they were retiring from Wikipedia, or were away indefinitely. In fact of the 110, only 22 had, during the past month, been editing as frequently as at least once in every seven consecutive days.

It seems to me that this is a very unsatisfactory situation: only 1 in five of the accounts listed is actually editing regularly. So what is to be done? For the moment, as a first step, I have decided to be bold and remove all accounts which have not edited for at least two months, and also move any account which has recent editing gaps of two weeks or more into a separate section, indicating that the account is not editing regularly. Naturally I shall tell the users in question what I have done on their talk pages, so that they can revert my change if they like. I regard this as a minimal start: some of the accounts I have left alone should probably be moved as well, but I thought I would let others express opinions before doing anything bolder. I also think of this as only a stop-gap. If we leave it like that and forget about it then the same situation will develop again. I have two suggestions for a longer-term solution:

1. Regular checks on the list, with removals of accounts that have not edited for a while. In the short run I will be happy to do this by hand, but I think it would be unrealistic to expect this to continue indefinitely unless a bot can take on the job. I have no experience of writing Wikipedia bots, but I am willing to learn, and I know someone who has such experience who may be willing to help me get started. However, this would require some work, not only in setting up the bot but also in maintaining it in the future. (A bot run by someone who eventually drifts away from Wikipedia would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise.)
2. A much easier, maintenance free, solution to the problem would be to just scrap this list. That may sound drastic, but there are other ways for editors to seek assistance which don't depend on one particular editor responding in a limited time, and I am not sure that it would really be a significant loss. It would certainly be more straightforward, and more reliable.

I will be interested to read any comments, either on the above suggestions or on any other relevant ideas. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Projects ask for participants to reaffirm their interest when a participant list is quite old. I think that would be appropriate here. Even those who are active editors may not wish to continue giving assistance. An annual notice asking people to confirm they are still prepared to give assistance would be acceptable. Perhaps the list of participants could be organised into a table format - name of participant, date joining Wikipedia, date joining EA, status (roll-backer, sysop, etc), comment (willing to help with disputes, sourcing, etc), date confirmed (as participant).SilkTork *^YES! 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for confirmation of still wanting to to take part is a good idea. However, in this case, unlike many projects, I think leaving inactive editors on the list for a year - or even a month - is undesirable. In many projects a name on the list of someone who is no longer active does little harm, but in this case it could leave inexperienced editors stuck without any help. As I said, inviting people to confirm they still want to take part is a good idea, but I don't think that on its own it is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the rate that new people sign up to this list I don't think it would be too much of a hassle to maintain it after a one-time purge of all inactives. The ones remaining can be reminded to remove themselves if they think they'll be becoming less active. -- œ^™ 12:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole I agree with that. Perhaps sooner or later the editor(s) performing this task would eventually slip into being inactive, and the problem might then creep back. (I have seen that sort of thing with other projects.) However, that might be quite a way in the future, and in the meanwhile things should be OK. I am now most of my way through checking every entry, removing/moving as seems appropriate, and informing everyone on the list (except those who both have not edited for a very long time and have said they have retired or equivalent.) Two other things about asking editors to remove themselves if they are going to become inactive: (1) A very large proportion of Wikipedians who have become inactive never decided to do so: they just didn't happen to edit for a while, and then for a while longer, and then for a while longer... Eventually they just lost the habit. Such editors would never remove themselves, as they would not be planning to drift away. (2) I feel quite strongly that, as I indicated above, while on most Wikipedia projects it does little or no harm to have inactive members hanging around on the list for a while, in this case an inactive editor being listed even for a week or two is likely to leave new editors who have asked for help feeling ignored. I therefore think that editors who have become inactive should be, if not remove completely, then at least moved onto an inactive list even if they have taken no action, and that this should happen over a fairly short time scale. I have taken the initiative by taking steps in this direction, but I have held back from being as bold as I would like before consulting others. I should like an agreement that anyone who has not edited for a few days could be moved onto an inactive list. Once an editor was on that list we could afford to leave them there until they have been inactive for quite a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think James has done the right thing. I would probably go so far as to suggest that a look is taken at the 'active' list members and see when they last answered a question on the EAR page. Some names there I haven't seen since I've been a regular here. For example, some have been give the mop and probably haven't got time. Others who are not on the list chime in quite regularly - including admins. As for being asked a question on our talk pages due to being on the list, I dunno - I'm so far down it that nobody asks me :( Kudpung (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know people who sign this list were also obligated to patrol EAR. Isn't just a list of editors who are willing to assist? -- œ^™ 12:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way I see it, and I have always regarded being on this list as completely separate from patrolling EAR. However, Kudpung makes a good point about being so far down the list. Another problem with the list is that most requests come to those at the top of the list. I mentioned above that Wikipedian2 had been receiving numerous requests despite being inactive, but I didn't mention that these requests stopped when someone rearranged the list so that Wikipedian2 was no longer the first one on the list. However, some requests do hit users further down the list. in the year and a bit since I've been on the list I have had three talk page approaches from people who said they came because I was listed here, and for all I know there may have been others who came for that reason but didn't say so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'Wikipedian' username may have a small part to play too, they probably thought he was more 'official' or something. -- œ^™ 12:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get requests for assistance from this list though I don't do patrolling. I feel that the way the list is currently arranged is not helpful to those looking for help. Asking people to confirm they are still willing to help is the way to proceed, though before we do that, it would be appropriate to discuss how we want the new list to appear so that when people resign up, they can do so on the new list. Example:

• After doing that table I think it may be awkward for editors to use when signing up. I think it needs to be fairly simple, yet also provides helpful and easily sortable information for users. SilkTork *^YES! 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to James for alerting me to this discsusion. While I don't patrol the various noticeboards (apart from WP:HD), I am still available for contact through my talk page. I'm still an active user and I'd appreciate my name remaining. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem: you are clearly active, and were not in line to be moved off. I informed you along with everyone else on the list in case you wanted to make an input to this discussion. (I say "everyone else on the list". I really mean "everyone on the list except a few retired editors, one or two who have posted here so that I know they already know, and myself. If I have missed anyone else I apologise.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, JamesBWatson, for alerting me to this. I am highly active right now, but I don't have this page watchlisted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I actually liked SilkTork's table. The people signing up for editor assistance probably will know about basic wikitable syntax. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an easier table to use:

I don't think we need to go OTT with the self promotion, length of service, etc; it's doesn't help the ones on the bottom of the list either, who may be quite experienced and willing to help. In fact it might even drive them off the project. Kudpung(talk) 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to keep it as simple as possible, though still useful. A plain list of 100 editors, even with comments, may not in itself be helpful; those at the top of the list might get the most requests, even though they may not be the most appropriate, or even active any longer. The list could be sortable by the types of information that might be useful. I think it's a matter of agreeing which information might be useful. Length of time on Wikipedia is a basic indicator of knowledge of Wikipedia. If I was looking for help, I'd be inclined to ask someone who has been here for five years over someone who has been here for five months. The downside of that, is people may just end up asking the same long service editors all the time. On the other hand, a new editor might prefer speaking with another newish editor.

Another way would be to make the list somehow random, as they do for the ArbCom elections. Or give instructions that a person asks the editor at the top of the list, and then to move that editor to the bottom of the list. That way, everybody gets asked for assistance in turn. SilkTork *^YES! 15:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that this is a job for a bot rather than relying on ad hoc human input. I do have a few comments though;

• The suggestion of removing participants who have not edited for three weeks I think is unacceptable, this is much too short a time. I was on a wikibreak myself recently and would have been very upset if I found I had been chucked off this (or any other) project when I returned. A better solution would be for the bot to mark the user as "currently inactive" or "user has not edited since foo" or somesuch for anyone who is absent for more than a couple of days. The bot should automatically remove this tag on its next run if the editor subsequently edits again.
• The above scheme has the benefit of catching "drive-by" sign-ups who immediately become inactive.
• Annual confirmation is a good idea. This could also be done by bot. First confirmation after initial sign-up should occur much earlier (within weeks, or even days) in order to catch and remove the drive-by-and-disappear crowd.
• Editors automatically removed through failing to reconfirm when requested should receive a notification from the bot. A lengthy window can be allowed for the editor to respond, there is no hurry here, one month or six weeks will do since either the editor is still active and capable of responding to requests, or if not his/her entry will already be marked inactive by the bot.
• I notice some editors use an online/offline status indicator on their page which could be monitored at EA, but I'm not sure how reliable this is. AFAIK these are updated manually and are therefore often wrong.

SpinningSpark 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of a quarterly request to confirm participation. Personally, I tend to edit in cycles of higher activity interspersed by periods of nearly dormant participation, but I still regard myself as active since I am reading articles and looking at my Talk page even when I am not editing on a regular basis. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a periodic review to keep the list fresh is necessary. Agree with Hiberniantears. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly is a bit on the intrusive side, and unnecessary if the bot proposal below is implemented. Annual is good enough if the bot ensures that only recently active editors are visible to the customers. SpinningSpark 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (sorry if this has already been discussed above, I've simply been prompted by the message on my User talk) I don't object reformatting the page, although the page as it currently looks is fine. Just let editors come and add themselves back on when they see your message and decide to join back. Actually I was slightly surprised that I didn't get moved to the "inactive" list! --Deryck C. 23:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a checkpage with a list of users would be a good idea, and I am willing to create a bot to update the participant table whenever these users stop editing for 21 days, or have <2 edits in 30 days, or whatever the cutoff consensus is. Nobody would need to be removed from the checkpage, since the users coming for editor assistance would look at the bot-updated table when looking for the list of users. We could ask users who want to provide editor assistance to sign up on the checkpage, and the bot would add them to the table. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I support this. SpinningSpark 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good solution. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to suggest a bot, good idea. What if the bot simply ran monthly and resorted the members of the list by their avg edits per week over the past four weeks or by the date of their last edit (or login)? This way the most recently active editors would always be at the top. 21 days is actually fairly short, currently I'm more active on some other projects and I have gone long stretches without editing but I still logged in frequently and always respond to messages (btw, no one has ever told me this is where they found me but sometimes I wondered where they came from, maybe this was it - I'd forgotten this list).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't possible to check the last login date of a user. However, I could easily sort by last edit date. Also, the bot could simply remove users from the table when they don't edit for a month, but leave them in the checkpage that way when they start editing again the bot will re-add them to the table. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These proposals seem to have dried up. I've been on this list for nine months and have never been asked once for help. A quick look at the talk pages of those at the top of the list or near it will show that they get asked most. I'm not in the lightest bit personally concerned about not being asked - I'm busy enough on Wikipedia. However, there have been instances where new and/or very inexperienced editors have added themselves here to the top of the list, the consequences of which might not have been in the best interests of people coming here for advice. I strongly suggest that we take another look at getting a bot to rotate this list on a daily or weekly basis. If no one here knows how to make such a bot, I will ask a botwriter to to go ahead and submit a bot approval and do it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily placed my name at the top of the list for the next 7 days, as I am curious to see first-hand how this list functions, and the volume of requests it attracts. I do not intend this to be permanent as I feel my work on the main WP:EAR to be sufficient, and will be reverting to the original position in seven days. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh be my guest, make it permanent - you can have them all if you like :) Seriously, a better plan than rotation would be to have the bot put the currently most active editors at the top. That way the enquirer will not get someone who has gone on holiday if they just take the top name. SpinningSpark 07:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the bot idea seemed to have dried up. Interesting is that in nearly a year of being on the list I never had a single request from it. Perhaps we should poll all the users on the active list to ask them how often or how many requests they've had for help. Most active users at the top? Unfortunately that probably would put me at the top or very near it, and that's not quite what I really want. In the meantime, I hope my experiment will provide some feedback. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you never had a single request from it? I have occasionally had messages from editors I have had no previous contact with, and it could be that some of them come from here, but don't say so. As far as I remember I have twice had contacts from editors who have said they have come from here. However, all the evidence is that contacts from here are probably rare, and considering the problems that arise if the page is not regularly maintained my own opinion is that it would be better to scrap it: there are other ways for editors to request help, such as WP:EAR and {{helpme}}, so I don't see that anything would be lost. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite sure James. I've never had a request out of the blue from anyone. We'll see what my little experiment comes up with, and if you like, you can do a stint at the top the week after, just to compare notes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nowhere near the top of the list but I do get a few requests every year, but not many. I suspect that the real reason for this is that the list is very difficult for a newbie to actually use - there is no structure to it. For instance a user may be trawling through the list looking for someone who might be able to help with a dipute about the right to bear arms in Texas, or has a question about the law concerning ice-cream sellers in Singapore. People who come here usually have a very specific issue but no good and easy way of finding the right person to help. As for scrapping the page, I am happy to let it stand providing it gets cleaned up regularly. Some people are just more comfortable talking one-to-one rather than posting to a more public notice board. I don't think we should be taking that option away from them.

On the bot issue, there is no problem asking for a bot, it is simply a matter of posting a request on the bot owner's noticeboard. We just have to get a consensus on what we are asking for the bot to do. ...and didn't you say above that you were going to get a bot writer to do it? SpinningSpark 17:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did, but I see little point in going ahead if my experiment demonstrates that this list generates only one or two enquiries a week. 4 days I've been up there, and nary a peep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's it then - over 8 days and not a single cry for help in the dark. Just imagining that if I had had one request, that would be an average of less than 50 a year emanating from this page. IMO we've already got too many overlapping pages offering broadly related help, and many of our replies here at EAR are simply to send people to a more appropriate desk or noticeboard. Whilst I agree with James in principle, I see no reason to scrap the list completely - it's not taking up masses of server space. Let's just let it slumber and if anyone gets a question, they can answer it. In the meantime, I'm putting my name back where it was. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]