Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Missing Wikipedians page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:MW

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 22 July 2012, see discussion.
keep, 30 June 2009, see discussion.
keep, 9 June 2007, see discussion.

Split

I suggest creating a Wikipedia:Retired Wikipedians page for those who have explicitly said good bye, and leave the unexpected disappearances to this page. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I care not for the word "retired." Too many people are being driven away. That is not retirement. How about Wikipedia:Voluntarily Departed Wikipedians or perhaps Wikipedia:Disgruntled Ex-Wikipedians? 63.3.19.1 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Retirement is the "official" term for decisive and purposeful exit of Wikipedia-duties. Disgruntled... and what-not just narrows it down into more possible categories that could end up going on forever. And even those who have said good bye are still no longer with us, and thus missing. It'll just cause more confusion I think. Best left as it is for now until the list expands to unmanagable size. Then we can consider a split. Lra drama 22:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These editors decided to retire. Kingturtle (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Retired people are not "missing". Missing implies that they've stopped editing and no-one knows their whereabouts. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense.. I don't think a separate page is needed though.. maybe split sections? one titled "Missing" and below it "Retired". Also, "missing" doesn't necessarily have to imply unknown whereabouts.. it could simply mean "gone" from Wikipedia, as in "not present". -- œ ^™ 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support creating a separate Retired wikipedians page, as reitired wikipedians are not truly missing-they intentionally stopped editing. Also, when Wikipedians retire, there is frequently an inciting event (e.g., a block, failed RfA, personal attack, deletion of a page) whereas with missing wikipediands they stopped editing for no reason what so ever. Immunize (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pity that this excellent suggestion, which seemed to have some momentum, stalled out. Including people who have given notice that they are "retiring" or otherwise leaving runs contrary to the everyday and common-sense meaning of "missing". In fact, including people who have posted "retire" templates on their accounts shouldn't be on any list - the category associated with the template should suffice. A page for "missing" participants should be limited to those whose "disappearance" is unexplained or remains uncertain in some way, or at least to those who haven't posted "retired" on their user page.Agent 86 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Agree that the retired are not missing, as in disappeared without explanation. However, the difference between Wikipedians who left with or without a parting statement is slim and often unimportant. This is really a page of "Missed Wikipedians". It is appropriate that they are all here, and a simple alphabetical ordering is best for browsing. People will come here browsing for old friends. Separating the list into explained and unexplained departures may have value in the study of Wikipedians and what drives them away, but do it elsewhere; it is not the purpose here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case the title of the page is a terrible misnomer.Agent 86 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber

(this is he, returning just for one little nitpick) The last sentence at the end of my entry totally misrepresents the content and direction of the discussion to which it refers. Rather than fix it myself I'm sure everyone would agree that it would be much less contentious if some conscientious individual were to at least rewrite it so it's less vengeful and more accurate. I will not be responding any more to this topic; just wanted to get this out there. 216.135.28.176 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's wholly accurate. You were on the brink of being banned and then you left so no formal action could be taken. Quite clever, in its own sneaky way. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting post from missing(?) Wikipedian User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu. Last edit: December 19, 2003

From User talk:Louis Kyu Won Ryu:

I have contributed under other names and plan to continue to do so; I fear I do not wish to have the other accounts publicly known. Jimbo and a couple others are aware of the particulars. Most of my contributions to everyday, hum-drum, non-controversial topics are under one persona. I am Louis for more controversial edits and policy discussions. Periodically, I abandon a persona and create a new one.

I do this for a number of reasons, but chiefly because I believe that the Wikipedia edit history will remain public for decades and I want to erect some barriers to the convenient retrival of a full list of edits, to articles, talk pages, and all, by some investigator twenty years hence when I'm looking for a job. In contrast to on-line communities like The Well (where you "own your own words"), there is no provision on Wikipedia to delete one's own contributions. Even on UseNet, while more compete archives exist, most respect X-No-Archive, and dejanews/google groups allows you to retroactively remove content. And in the absence of a meatball:UseRealNames philosophy, I see no reason why I should in effect sign every post. Martin is aware of my real name, as are a few others who I trust; it is unique enough that Usenet and Web searches return a fair number of valid hits.

In any case, I ask for no more consideration than a casual anonymous user. I ask for no special status based on my past history, and would hope that no one would ascribe any. Actual experience bears this out, as Wikipedians rarely give greater credence to material written by longtime users. On the other hand, there is some development of cliqueish groups who are mutually supportive due to a similar viewpoint on issues of mutual concern. Each edit speaks for itself on Wikipedia, by and large, and that's probably OK.

As a rule, I don't edit the same page under more than one persona, at least not on purpose. For one thing, I might get in an edit war with myself :-). But seriously, that would raise issues of fairness. And, as a rule, I try to avoid voting on anything, under this persona or any other.

In any case, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, to foster community, create shared understanding, support the Meatball:RightToFork, support the free availability of the content in perpetuity, and be part of something that is unique enough that no one really knows how it will turn out.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 02:02, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Makes me question whether it's worth adding anyone at all to this list. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 03:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Do you think maybe we should have a section somewhere on the wikipedia where people's views have been expressed as to why editors have left and maybe therefore we can improve this project to make sure that the number of editors rises instead of falls. Maybe im focusing on the negative, i know there are tons of people doing great stuff on here and they don't get recognised but i have just over the years come across many reasons and i think there should be one place where this can be documented so we can learn from one another. Messages like this, or this just to link a few. Cheers 211.30.120.216 (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of listing

This page, from January 2006 until today, instructed editors to "wait about a month" before listing another editor as missing. Prior to January 2006, the instructions were to "wait at least several weeks", instructions that were not unlike the previous ones.

Any consensus for a change to "at least 3 months" (which I have reverted per WP:BRD)?

^Bongo_matic 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 months. Many Wikipedians go on long breaks up to a month or more and then return to editing as if they've never left. It's better to be safe and tighten up the criteria for listing to increase accuracy, lest we get irate editors complaining about assumptions that they're missing when in fact they've just decided to take a vacation, or who knows what. Fact is we have no idea what these editors are up to, we shouldn't be adding them without a considerably longer period of time elapsed. My proposal of at least 3 months seems reasonable to me. -- œ ^™ 03:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have a strong view about the cutoff (and have no view on one month versus three other than to suggest it should be discussed first), but in the meantime, the existing guideline of one month has been around for long enough for editors to be neither surprised nor offended to be listed after one month. Obviously, other indicia of being "missing" as opposed to being on break (major disputes before last edit, etc.) are important factors to consider when listing an editor here. ^Bongo_matic 03:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I would be surprised, but also flattered, to see my name appear on "we miss you!" list after only a month of being away, especially if I was only on vacation somewhere where there's no available internet access nearby. But regarding listing MGM, if you happened to notice a major dispute he was in before his last edit then I agree that's valid enough reason to believe he might have purposely stopped editing. -- œ ^™ 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha . . . I meant the opposite. I find it much more puzzling if someone leaves without explicit or implicit announcement (resignations or imputed resignations are no puzzle at all). I see no evidence in MGM's history to indicate any reason to stop participating. ^Bongo_matic 04:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 months seems like a minimum to me. Lots of folks go away (that is, to real life) for six or eight weeks without giving it a thought. Heck, I wouldn't mind this being made four or six months. Un school 05:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I'm gonna go ahead and change it to 3 months minimum, unless Bongo do you want to start an RFC for wider community input? I can agree to leave MGM in the list as an exception. -- œ ^™ 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's agreement from those who care enough to watch this page. ^Bongo_matic 22:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 months seems fine to me too. --Gwern (contribs) 14:20 14 September 2009 (GMT)

3 months would be about the maximum I'd go. By that point most would be forgotten so would, ironically, not end up here. Wizardman 04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 months seems a bit to long to me. My assumption would be that most, but not all very involved editors would not abandon editing for 1-2 months without notice. I would say 1 month seems like a more reasonable guidline, unless, of course, they leave a goodbye message or retirement template, in which case I think the editor should be added to the list after 2 weeks of inactivity. Regards. Immunize (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks is far too small. There are vacations which are longer than that, especially in conjunction with finals or projects. --Gwern (contribs) 01:42 14 February 2010 (GMT)

Actually, I feel that it depends on the actual contributor. Some contributors (including myself) are on almost every day, thus a 2 week break would be highly unusual. Other editors are less reliable-they come for a week-they go for a week. I feel that you should wait at least 1 month if an editor is in the latter group, but that they may be put into the list if they are in the former group and disappear for 2-3 weeks. Regards. Immunize (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new ones to list?

A couple decently established editors who haven't edited in at least a month include the following whom I just requested a status update from: [1] and [2]. Both were assets to our project and I am concerned what happened, i.e. no dramatic departure, they just stopped. A couple others who stopped editing unannounced include User:Randomran and User:Sephiroth BCR. Anyway, at least a few editors with whom I had many interactions and who were not like on the verge of being banned, so, just a bit concerned. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list those who invoke Wikipedia:Right to vanish?

I don't think we should be listing any users who have requested meta:Right to vanish. I'm assuming they would not want to be listed. Thoughts? Anyone agree/disagree? -- œ ^™ 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have ever objected AFAIK, and their names still appear in edit histories, as well as in the project's collective memory. Badlydrawnjeff may have invoked his, but an ArbCom case (a key one, at that) still has his name, after all. If the ArbCom isn't going to change the name of the case, we should have no problems listing "vanished" users here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Plus if they don't want to be listed they can just remove their name. -- œ ^™ 03:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Machine (talk · contribs)

Extraordinary Machine (talk · contribs), who had not edited since August 13, 2009, made a number of edits on January 30,2010, so I removed him from the list of missing wikipedians. Immunize (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuelm (talk · contribs) has not edited since December 20,2009

I intend to add Emmanuelm (talk · contribs) to the list of missing wikipedians,as he has made no contributions since December 20.He left no indications of a wikibreak prior to his departure. Immunize (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about being missing...

I get a little pissed off from time to time and sometimes I think about tossing in the towel and leaving. Can I get a listing on this page... or do I have to wait until I'm so pissed off that I really do leave for good? JBarta (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Now don't let the door hit you on the way out! Lugnuts (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might have worded that differently, since Jbarta may be in a place to interpret that comment as uncivil. How about: one can't add oneself to this page since you wouldn't yet have become missing. However, you might consider a WP:wikibreak to clear your head, There are oodles of reasons to get angry while working on this project but it's probably healthier to leave any negative feelings behind if you choose to go.--otherl left 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was just a joke. Geez, it's a tough crowd around here. JBarta (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for leaving

Among those users that retired or left rather than just 'disappeared', many of them leave statements and good-bye letters on their user pages stating why they chose to leave. If someone could sort through and arrange all these various reasons this would provide useful insight on what we're doing wrong, what we could do better, and could make for a good report for the Community Health Task Force at the Strategy Wiki site, or at least some interesting statistical information to display on a subpage here. Thoughts? -- œ ^™ 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can get something together. Useight (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got something started at User:Useight/Sandbox 2. Useight (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting! Thanks to User:OlEnglish for pointing me to this. I'd love to see more analysis like what's started... it's not something I can personally help with right now, but I think it's fascinating. Philippe Beaudette, Facilitator, Strategy Project (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Useight! that's a great start. I should be free sometime this week so i'll make some time to add on to it. And I'm glad you find this interesting Philippe. This is exactly the kind of data the community health task force needs. -- œ ^™ 04:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant links:

Another good resource to discover reasons why certain Wikipedians leave is the history of the Wikipedia:Stress alerts page. For instance, have a look at this particular revision: [3] where a number of Wikipedians explain their issues. -- œ ^™ 12:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HighinBC

HighinBC mostly made edits favourable to cannabis, which led to threats against his family. Cannabis causes much crime and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.55.93 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my understanding was that he, as an admin, deleted the Gay Nigger Association of America article after one of its AfDs (not the last one) came out in favor. This so enraged the hackers behind it that they found out personal info on him, which was what led to threats on his family and his ultimate departure. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin bullet?

Is there any particular logic to when this should be used? It seems decently consistent for those who still have the admin bit, but much more random for former admins. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mop icon should be used for all former admins as well. Given the fact that they're missing and no longer editing it really makes no difference if they had their bit removed, so if they were an admin for an extended period at some point in their wiki 'career' they should still be marked as such. It can be noted in their description if and why their bit was removed. Also, the {{Admin}} template should be used for all former admins because it still lets us view their admin actions from when they were an admin. -- œ ^™ 04:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility problem with the use of the admin bullet

The use of the admin bullet causes an accessibility problem for me as a screen reader user since it doesn't contain a "*" to signify the start of a list item. I would like to be able to move through the list by pressing "i" to get to the next list item, but I can't do that reliably because of the mop icon. The best way of illustrating this problem is with an example. In the "c" section I hear: "list of 2 items, Camptown, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, list end; mop icon: CanadianCaesar; list of 7 items, Cantthinkofagoodname ..." and so on. Ideally I'd like to have all the names in each section as one long HTML list. How can this problem be resolved? Graham87 03:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the {{mop}} produces a floated div and without a "*", it closes the unordered list. The rest of the line is a paragraph in its own right, and then a new list starts with the next entry. I guess somebody thought that mimicking a bullet point with an icon would be the same for everybody – as we know, it isn't. I'd suggest simply adding a "*" before the {{mop}}, but we'd also need to reduce the size of the mop icon slightly as it's too tall and would then indent the following line. --RexxS (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented the mop icon just as a way of visually enhancing the list and having former admins stand out more. I wasn't even thinking about accessibility, it just didn't occur to me at the time. Now that I'm aware that this issue exists, I fully support any proposal to fix this problem. Please feel free to take whatever steps you deem necessary to make the list accessible to screen readers. -- œ ^™ 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that the mop icon is a good idea, but I hope it can be made more accessible. Graham87 13:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version seems to keep the lists together, without affecting the position of the next entry after each mop icon. The indents within entries are sometimes inconsistent, but they don't line up correctly even when the mop is used without the bullet point. Peter E. James (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that version sounds good to me. Graham87 00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: [4] .. Actually, the {{mop}} icon was intended to function as a stylized bullet itself, but oh well, I guess this'll work too. -- œ ^™ 04:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging indent style

Because some entries are 3 lines or more I think it would look neater and read more clearly if this list could be formatted with the hanging indent style; similar to how WP:Wikipedians with articles does it. Anyone know if this could be done in conjunction with the {{mop}} icon and also without causing any accessibility headaches? -- œ ^™ 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Or we could just drop the mop icon altogether,~~ (Just found out that the mop icon CAN work with the handing indent style!) in which case here is an example of how the list would look like with hanging indent: User:OlEnglish/test. What do guys think? -- œ ^™ 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me, except the mop icon still breaks up the definition list because it occurs before the list markup, so it comes out as "definition list of 5 items, admin mop, defenition list of 2 items ..." and so on. Graham87 02:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so I guess there's no way around this particular problem? -- œ ^™ 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of, unfortunately. Graham87 05:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it solve the problem to put the mop icon after the name?--~T P W 15:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. Graham87 02:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depressing

I just looked over this list and it's depressing to see how many of my wiki-friends circa 2003/2004 are on here. Raul654 (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I haven't been on that long and I can still remember many of these people. You can easily feel like "The Wanderer" reading it, and maybe we should use that once-popular yearbook quote from Genesis's "Afterglow" ("The ways and holes that used to give me shelter / Are all as one to me now. / But I, I would search everywhere / Just to hear your call. / And walk upon stranger roads than this one / In a world I used to know before / I miss you more.") as an epigraph. However, I also balance it with Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young: "Don't let the past remind us of what we are not now ..." Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same, all those people I'd talk to in the chatroom when Wikipedia had less than 250,000 articles. I don't see how anyone can stop editing completely...my edit count has been way down these last three years but I still fix a page when I see one. Maybe they just don't bother logging in anymore? Billy H 17:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit(s) request

Change the "#" header to a level 2 header, titled "0-9" (to fit the coding, because [[Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians##]] doesn't work with coding when typed). Also, "Index" box at the top should include " [[##|#]] ". Change

{| id="toc" style="margin: 0 auto; text-align: center;" border="0" align="center"
| '''Index''' [[#A|A]] [[#B|B]] [[#C|C]] [[#D|D]] [[#E|E]] [[#F|F]] [[#G|G]] [[#H|H]] [[#I|I]] [[#J|J]] [[#K|K]] [[#L|L]] [[#M|M]] [[#N|N]] [[#O|O]] [[#P|P]] [[#Q|Q]] [[#R|R]] [[#S|S]] [[#T|T]] [[#U|U]] [[#V|V]] [[#W|W]] [[#X|X]] [[#Y|Y]] [[#Z|Z]]
|}

which shows as

Index

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

to

{| id="toc" style="margin: 0 auto; text-align: center;" border="0" align="center"
| '''Index''' [[##|#]] [[#A|A]] [[#B|B]] [[#C|C]] [[#D|D]] [[#E|E]] [[#F|F]] [[#G|G]] [[#H|H]] [[#I|I]] [[#J|J]] [[#K|K]] [[#L|L]] [[#M|M]] [[#N|N]] [[#O|O]] [[#P|P]] [[#Q|Q]] [[#R|R]] [[#S|S]] [[#T|T]] [[#U|U]] [[#V|V]] [[#W|W]] [[#X|X]] [[#Y|Y]] [[#Z|Z]]
|}

which shows as

Index

# A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

to include "#" before the "A". Also, change the "Missing Wikipedians" header to a level 1 header, to fit the below alphabetical headers. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've updated the index and I do see the problem with linking to the # section, it doesn't work. I'm not sure if 0-9 works though, it doesn't accomodate all the usernames under the current section. Can you think of an alternative? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about one section titled "special characters" and another titled "0–9"? Graham87 01:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Wikipedians with a small number of edits

Just wondering if anyone cares to try and assess statistics of Wikipedians who made a very small, but important contribution to Wikipedia, such as this one for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rtseosupermario Ottawahitech (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Liam_Braithwaite Ottawahitech (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just moved the entry user:Giovanni Camporeale to have it properly sorted. Afterwards I noticed that this editor has less than the required number of edits to be included in the list - yet this entry has been around for a while (btw how can I find out when this entry was created?). XOttawahitech (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using WikiBlame, I discovered that this user was added to the Missing Wikipedians page in this edit in April 2010. Graham87 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the edit threshold is meant to keep people from adding others willy-nilly, but I think we could make some exceptions for those who were quite active and made huge, even if few, contributions in their areas of interest. I just came back from seeing a guy's page with a barnstar on it for working hard to promote Christina Aguilera's articles to GA, and he's only made 942 edits ATM. If he were to leave right now, I'd say he could be put here because apparently he's had a huge impact on Wikipedia, even if he wasn't the only one responsible for those GAs. LazyBastard Guy 04:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza and Eequor

I have come across a few mentions of Esperanza, but don't know what it was. I see on the article page the mention that Eequor (Last edit February 16, 2006) left a note at Esperanza that said "I don't expect to come back again."

I would like to read this discussion but don't know how to find it. Is there a way, or is it one of those topics that only admins can see? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza was an organisation that began in August 2005 to support Wikipedians in need and increase the sense of community on the site. It had several major, major problems, so was disbanded in January 2007 (see the links from the main Esperanza page). Eequor made her last edit to Stress alerts, which used to be part of Esperanza. Btw, her second RFA is a fascinating read. Graham87 03:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham for this information. Seems to me that :Wikipedia:Esperanza had similar objectives to the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, but I may be wrong. In any event I hope the new project fares better than the predecessor :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza - which means "hope" was taken down by people who believed that it was too powerful, had a hierarchy, contrary to the flat structure of Wikipedia and was hence dangerous. Some parts survived, others were deleted with prejudice. While I was not paying attention at the time, it seemed a terrific shame. Since then (and probably before) the process of destroying rather than salvaging and improving has continued to be a common reaction to things not appreciated or understood. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Fastily

Apparently Fastily stated that he/she is quitting English Wikipedia, not Wikipedia at all. He/she is still active in Commons and Meta. Spartacks Compatriot 11:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not part of Wikipedia, though. IMO we should keep details like that to a minimum, to reduce the number of statements that could potentially go out of date. Graham87 09:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wonder if it is a good idea to standardize the information that we keep on this page. Would it encourage more wikipedians to contribute here if we had a template to fill out? Do we want more participants?... Ottawahitech (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might encourage some users who like templtes, but it would also dissuade users who aren't comfortable with templates – many experienced editors would fall into the latter category. Graham87 05:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One's own version of Missing Wikipedians

I happened to visit another wikipedian's user page and found this. I wonder if others also keep track of their own MW's? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot get count

I have been gtetting a lot of error messages recently when I try to see someone's count. This should be a problem for anyone browsing/contibuting to this wiki-page? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with the count link here, that would be an issue with the toolserver. Although I have been experiencing a different problem: unusually long load times for this page. Once it's cached it's fine, and I realize it could just be because of the overall length and large amount of template transclusions. But is anyone else finding it's taking an excessively long time for the page to load? Is there a way to fix this problem? -- œ ^™ 19:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how to fix it, but yes, I am also having trouble loading this page, and, in general my editing access to Wikipedia has been really slow the last couple of days culminating today with an old familiar ERROR message:

Wikimedia FoundationError

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes

xOttawahitech (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TOC position

See my edit summary here, regarding this edit. Graham87 02:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can blocked editors be listed as missing?

This is the second time that I added a blocked editor to the list. The first time my edit was removed by someone who had first hand recollections of frustrations involved with the particular editor, so it appears that the editor was not really missed.

The editor I inserted recently seems to have a number of talk-page supporters, so I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone here objects to this entry and to see the reasoning. After all there are thousands (I think) of blocked editors, so I assume some are missed? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are two ways we can read "missing". My first assumption was that it should be read as a "missing person", in which case blocked editors aren't missing. In the second sense, that of being missed, Penylup is still regularly engaging other editors through his talk page, and contributing images that he generates for use on WP. They are uploaded to Commons, but discussed here. So while I guess some may miss his presence in mainspace, his ongoing engagement through his user talk seems to question listing him here. - Bilby (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Bilby. As far as a "missing person", "Retired" editors are also not "missing", yet we routinely add them to the list. As far as your second point, I don't believe that allowing user: Penyulap access to his/her talk page is substitute for editing.

Since no one else has joined this discussion, I have gone ahead and reverted your correction. I hope you don't feel too strongly about it. I do believe blocking certain contributors has detrimental effects on the community. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that strongly about it, but I think it is important to understand what is meant by "missing". We do need figure out if this is a list of people who are "missed" on Wikipedia, or people who have stopped editing, and what the rules are in each case.

In regard to stopping editing, Penylup has not stopped - he has been blocked as a result of a community discussion, but has continued to be active on his talk page. To the extent that he was specifically returned access to it so he could continue to engage in discussions about WP. So the questions are a) whether or not this list should include people who are still actively contributing through their talk pages, even if they don't or can't edit mainspace, and b) if we should count blocked and banned editors as missing.

In regard to being missed, the problem there is that many editors are missed by someone when they stop. But that's inherently subjective - while I understand that there are editors who clearly want Penylup back, I assume that as he was blocked as a result of a community discussion for disruption, there are also a number of editors who feel the opposite. So do we use a subjective criteria for this list, given that there will be very diverse opinions? - Bilby (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one element of the rules, apparently we shouldn't list editors if they continue to edit. So I guess in that sense Penylup isn't missing, as he hasn't ceased editing. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "We do need figure out if this is a list of people who are "missed" on Wikipedia, or people who have stopped editing, and what the rules are in each case."

I understood it both ways, that is, we only list editors here which have stopped editing *and* are being respectfully remembered for their work at least by the person who adds them to the list. Editors, who are at least partially active (f.e. on talk pages), are not missing, and personally I would not count indefinitely blocked editors as being missing as well - perhaps with very few exceptions: Someone, who has asked to become blocked himself (does this case exists?), or someone, who has successfully contributed without problems for years, and then has a sudden mental breakdown (f.e. as part of a serious illness such as a brain tumor) leading to behaviour which makes it impossible for the community not to indef block the user. Such a user may act unpredictably unconstructive and have to be blocked indefinitely but still is not really guilty for the actions, so that his/her previous contributations are not invalidated by the new behaviour, which leads to the block.

I see this list as a way to honor previous good editors which have left the project due to changes in life, changes in their scope of interest, out of frustration with some WP issues or because they died. A last way to say "Thank you" for us, and if they left for some WP issues also a remainder for things we should try to avoid and improve in order to make this a more friendly and satisfactory place for valuable contributors to stay.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There is mention of a community discussion that takes place when someone is indefinitely blocked, but in my experience this is not always the case. Was there such a discussion in user: Penyulap's case? - If so where can I find it? Thanks in advance. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That took place over at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#User:Penyulap - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for providing this information, User:Bilby. It was interesting to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Penyulap. How did you find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#User:Penyulap - is there a standardized link to follow when one sees a blocked editor? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, although sometimes a link is provided in the block log as mart of the summary. In this case I just recalled the discussion was on ANI. - Bilby (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning blocked users on Missing Wikipedians

I have just had another addition of a wp:blocked user reverted. This one was not a wp:Sock Puppet but was wp:indefntiely blocked after making more than fifty thousand edits on Wikipedia. I had come across this editor myself a few times, and he seemed to be a serious contributor. I was shocked when I found out he was blocked indefinitely. There is no block notices on his user or talk pages and no explanation/reason for the block.

Is there a way to tell which blocked editors are acceptable to include in this list and which ones are not? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another one you added was just removed [5]. (This user was indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee, but then again, so are many other users who are listed on the page.) I can only conclude that either the criteria for this list are not sufficiently explained on the page, or else they are not being applied consistently. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meco was not blocked by ArbCom or on behalf of ArbCom, although only ArbCom can hear appeals from that user. As for the general issue of listing blocked users, it seems to be that dormant or retired users may return, but indef blocked users are not likely to return (using the same username, at least). I'm not entirely sure what purpose this list serves, but I would be wary of including indef blocked users, especially those with blocks that can only be removed by ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where people were given fixed term blocks and then chose to stop editing, even if the block was in place when they left, I don't see a problem with including them here. But where the block is indefinite, or where it is a ban, then they are not missing from the community so much as no longer permitted to be a part of the community. They haven't left, as such, but have been prevented from staying. Meco's case is more serious than most: no admin can lift the block without the permission of ArbCom, and ArbCom are extremely unlikely to permit the block to be lifted, so it is best viewed as a de facto ban. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Bilby said. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked users are literally 'missing' as other users have 'missed' them. Many indef blocks are subsequently lifted, and it is not possible to determine whether or not any given indef blocked user will subsequently be unblocked or not. Therefore since these users are perceived as missing, they should be included on the list of missing wikipedians. Thom2002 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't "missing", any more than a child is "missing" from recess when they've been put in time-out. They are people who are either unwilling or unable to play nice with others, thus earning a boot, they don't get to be listed here.

But anyways, as I read through this list I'm struck by how dippy and pointless this is, honestly. These people left of their own volition, either via frustration with the project, lack of interest, or found better uses for their time and energy. I'd wager that if some of these people...esp the ones gone ~2004 or earlier, knew that a website they used to contribute to maintains a weird face-on-the-milk-carton eulogy of their departure, the reaction would range from slight bemusement to eyerolls to "now I remember why I left in the first place" sentiments. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confusing a block with some form of punishment, which according to WP:BLOCK, it explicitly isn't. Thom2002 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all know the difference between the company line and the de facto reality, though, of course blocks are punishment. Vandalize too many pages? Block. Curse out the wrong user at the wrong time? Block. Dragged before Arbcom, who decides you're a problem that should be removed? Blocked. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your punishment-based reality is quite the same as mine... Thom2002 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I happened to see another discussion that mentions blocking as punishment, and thought I would share it with those interested. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thom2002, I interpret "missing" to mean that we do not know where they are. You seem to be treating this as "missed", not missing, Wikipedians. In either case, this list is unlikely to be seen by "missing Wikipedians" unless they return to WP, so this list doesn't exist for those people. If there is a point to this, what is it? And why couldn't a bot maintain this list? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the project page says that, "the purpose of this list is to provide a reminder to us of those who have left and their reasons for doing so", and I think indef blocked users (particularly those who have chosen not to attempt to become unblocked) can be remembered in this way. Thom2002 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And, if I may add, many indef blocked users have also been prodigious content contributors (I can think of quite a few) and it would be a shame to ignore that. --regentspark (comment) 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked users have not "left", they have been escorted out of the building. Someone should update the preamble to reflect whether indef'd users are included or not. I'm probably going to go back to ignoring this page again (I was only drawn here by my interest in User:Meco), so feel free to ignore my opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, blocked users is one issue, but banned is IMO non-negotiable; There is no way on God's green earth that a harassing, grudge holding troll like "Mbz1" (ban link) is going to be listed as a "Missing Wikipedian". It is really time for a cold bit of common sense here; anyone listed at WP:BANNED should never, ever, ever be listed on THIS page. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that banned users, especially the ones who were banned with no opportunity to say a single word in their defense, should not be listed in this list. Banned users are no longer Wikipedians, they are simply humans. What I do not understand is the hater one and a half year after the ban! So, I too see a harassing, grudge holding troll here, and even an orc except it is not me, tarc. Too bad there are no humans to stop these stinky orcs. Cheers. 71.198.250.51 (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, I'm fairly certain that Mbz is still editing via IP from time to time. So she may not have ever really left. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution1221

Revolution1221 left a template and message on his user page, stating he was abruptly leaving. 173.73.64.153 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldn't be listed here until he has made no edits for three months. People can and do change their mind about these things. Graham87 04:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of last contribution

My general thought about the idea is meh ... it could be marginally useful, but it would also make it harder to update the list (especially for newer users). I left it there after this edit because I didn't want to interfere with the "style" of each individual's entry, if you know what I mean. Graham87 02:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Count not available

I Have been getting a message:

Page not found (404)

When I try to get an editor's count. Anyone else? XOttawahitech (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Count is now working, but it seems that everyone's Deleted edits: are now zero? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Yes, The edit counter has moved to Wikimedia Labs. I've just updated the appropriate template, and therefore the edit count links should work now. As it says on the linked village pump discussion, the edit counter doesn't yet have access to information about deleted edits, but that should be resolved soon. Graham87 13:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like the Helpdesk is also on to it: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Edit_count_on_User_contributions_page_does_not_work XOttawahitech (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia FoundationError

I got this error message when trying to add user: Gungadin to the list of MWs:

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes...

But it looks like the entry was added anyway. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that happens sometimes. Graham87 09:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic here?

While notifying one of the editors that he was added to the list of missing wikipedians, I noticed an older message that may need some action:

User_talk:CliffC#Spam_created_by_a_former_employee. XOttawahitech (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there, for whatever it's worth. Graham87 15:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica

The last edit by Noetica as a Wikipedian was in early February 2013. Editors can check his contributions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Noetica, but they may wish to avoid seeing the last three posts that he made, in April 2013, "as a consumer", where a profane expression was discussed in the second post. At 11:37, 3 February 2013, Noetica posted in reference to his talk page "I would prefer that it be kept very bare. I do not want notifications of any kind here".
—Wavelength (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]