Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Bots and gadgets/Gadget: Who is active

Random proposal ►◄ Bots and gadgets The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Gadget: Who is active

Problem: Sometimes you look for any active user on a list of users (campaigns, WikiProjects, experts etc.) to make a request. Often you have to check many of them until you find one active. Sometimes no one on a given list has been active for years and only time is wasted.
Proposed solution: There is a script that allows to see, after entering the user's page, when the user made the last edit. Perhaps we could build a tool that would present such information next to the link to the user page, just like the gadget "Replies with links" does. The displayed information could be the date of the last edition, or the active / inactive icon, if the user also set in their .css the range to which someone is considered as active (X minutes, X hours, X days, etc.).
Who would benefit: Organizers, Wikimedians looking for active users on various lists
More comments:
Phabricator tickets:
Proposer: Hedger z Castleton (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Navigation popups will show the date of a user's first and latest edits. Reywas92 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supported: but please keep the privacy safe. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similar script to the one linked in the description available at de:Benutzer:Schnark/js/letzteredit (multilingual). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support This would have sped up the cross-wiki climate denial review quite a bit. Looking in the translator category, I came across many users how had stopped editing. Femke (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support short and sweet EpicPupper (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sea Cow (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daud Iffa (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --𝑇𝑚𝑣 (𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑘) 01:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would benefit all communities immensely. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JopkeB (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ottawajin (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3aFW (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Флаттершай (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Respublik (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aca (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — SHEIKH (Talk) 12:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ElBe ^{1 | 2 | WP} 17:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jules* ^Talk 18:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite-useful. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Douglasfugazi (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 23:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thingofme (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Imran Awan (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheInternetGnome (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 07:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andrewredk (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Titore (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rusalkii (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it would be relatively easy for me to write something like this, and I'd enjoy the challenge. JPxG (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support BugWarp (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Qazwsx777 (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to have, as far as a way to appear offline even if online is provided. Trizek ^{from FR} 11:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IAmChaos (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bencemac (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IOIOI (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dave Braunschweig (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alain Artivalys (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ju Mdz (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support KingAntenor (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ifrit.eu (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rdrozd (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support AnonymousStackOverflow (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support HouseBlaster (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aimwin66166 (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Paucabot (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Szoltys (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Salicyna (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kenraiz (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ciacho5 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gdarin | talk 16:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The navigation popups provide the last edited date. I don't see an additional time would benefit this proposal. While it could be helpful to see who is active based on last x timeframe as said in the proposal, I do not support any of the developments that could one day might be exploited in a breach of privacy. Wikimedia already publishes a lot of public logs, any further from the software is not recommended. Users who're interested can use the scripts. DaxServer (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bibeyjj (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 00:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Djdj5050 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support SD hehua (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exilexi (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm trying out the linked script, which is neat. But this proposal would be an easier option for some editors. paul2520 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 03:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have several privacy concerns regarding this. Additionally, Wikipedia is not social media. Nave do Conhecimento (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mohammad ebz (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Krzysiek 123456789 (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Cybularny ^Speak? 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support DontWannaDoThis (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't believe that it has any advantages over the already existing scripts. IMO, we should focus on real problems and try not to reinvent the wheel. --Ján Kepler (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gaurav (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Der Fussi 12:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep. Many users are not here anymore, but they are still in lists/categories. Carn (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]