Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Should the sections be split?[edit]

Some sections are getting very long, for exapmle the S section. Are others finding it difficult to update? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the difficulty is, but I use a screen reader so my method of navigating the site is not the norm. If it's scrolling, you can use the Page Up and Page Down keys for that. It's also possible to copy wikitext into a text editor and use its find features to search for the right place to put an editor's name in. Graham87 06:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There are editors who do not have up&down keys on their devices let alone access to a text editor. I bet there is also a large variety of screen readers, some that are more difficult to use for editing on wiki? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't think about phones and things. Re screen readers: there are, but the ones where scrolling could be a problem aren't widely used at all. The sort of people who would find this page, let alone want to edit it, would be fairly familiar with Wikipedia, and have to deal with much longer sections than the ones on this page. Graham87 11:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I would agree that the sections should probably be split into subpages, Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians/A, Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians/B, etc. It is simply getting too long at 155KB at present.-- 02:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"somewhat creepy page"[edit]

I saw this posted on a user-talk page - had no idea some view Missing in that light. Comments? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

I am 180 out from Iridescent's interpretation of this page. Never Have I Ever listed an editor here to "name and shame" them. Quite the contrary, it's worth creating this metaphorical graveyard of Wikipedians to commemorate their work and remind those currently editing where the pitfalls are. I always believed that this was an editor retention project because each user that walks away for a demonstrable reason allows us to anticipate what might trigger some of us getting really down about editing. Buy-in is a valuable thing and once it's gone, it's gone. I would hate to either forget these missing Wikipedians existed or treat them as replaceable parts, ground down into ineffectivity and thrown out with the vandals. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
While I don't think there is an intention to name and shame editors, I too find this page pretty creepy, for the title if nothing else. (And not to suggest anyone is acting from anything but the best intentions, referring to the page as a "metaphorical graveyard" just reinforces the creepiness of it.) These people aren't "missing" in any sense of the word. They just stopped editing Wikipedia, in most cases voluntarily. Their work is not forgotten - it is in our articles, in the pages they touched. I had forgotten this page existed until seeing the discussion linked above. Now I wonder whether after I'm retired I'm going to have to come back here on a regular basis just to keep my username off the list. It's actually sent shivers up my spine just thinking about it, especially given its similarity to the deceased Wikipedians page. Risker (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Possibly the page could be moved to Inactive Wikipedians? Red Jay (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Red Jay re the title. But that's not the only problem. The original conversation arose five days ago when Ottawahitech asked an administrator (who herself hasn't edited for over three years!) why she had blocked a particular editor four years ago. The rationale for asking this was "trying to figure out a better way of communicating information in regards to blocked users". In my view, there is no "better way" to list such editors. They shouldn't be listed on Missing Wikipedians—period. Editors who have ceased editing because they are indefinitely blocked or banned have not "decided" to leave. They have no choice. Frankly, I think it's unkind to list those people there. They have no way of removing their own names or why they are "missing" and there they sit for all to see. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Ditto editors who received long blocks and didn't return when the blocks expired. Again, there's no need whatsoever to state that explicitly on the list. Let them leave quietly without public documentation of their previous problems... at the bare minimum. Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Risker: I don’t believe you have to worry about being added to the list if you don’t want the honor. As long as User:Graham87 continues to be involved keeping all of us junior editors in check with his superb technical and wiki-history knowledge, this will probably not happen. I am sure if someone wanted to be kept off the list, Graham87 would find a way to accomplish this. (@Graham87, I hope you don’t mind me saying this this). Ottawahitech (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
How about only listing people who have voluntarily opted in to inclusion on the list? I can't honestly see any way to keep my name off it when I retire - I've been too high profile on the project, with all my fancy tools and years on arbcom. Remember, the original list from back in 2004 (when the list of the entire active editing community was shorter than the page now memorializing them) included only people who were what might be called "pillars of the community", and after 15 years that's a pretty difficult description to reflect with any accuracy. Risker (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Risker: If you or anybody else retires but doesn't want their name added to the list, then an HTML comment can be added in the appropriate alphabetical position saying "<username.> does not want to be added here". I guess it could be added preemptively, but that feels creepy even to *me*, which is saying something. Which brings me to my next point: @Ottawahitech:, thanks very much for the kind words. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but trying to keep your eager but sometimes over-enthusiastic edits in check is basically the only reason I have this page on my watchlist now. I don't really have many strong feelings about what should happen to the page (except that it should almost never list indefblocked editors, and it should be as accurate as possible). The only reason it came onto my watchlist in the first place is this old accessibility issue. Graham87 15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree with any move of this page. The Wikipedians listed are missing. We should not be adding any blocked users unless their block was because the account was later compromised. We have already honored requests by Wikipedians whom don't want to be listed, as I have here. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Graham 87 for confirming my suspicion. I hope it is not too late to step away and keep the "creepy" comments directed at me and not at this page. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
  • Thanks, Ottawahitech. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. Graham87 06:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, Chris, it's all well and good to say it shouldn't have blocked people on it but the list currently has four indefinitely blocked editors: [1], [2], [3], [4] and one more banned by ArbCom: [5]. And is it really necessary to document the troubles of other users who received long blocks and bans but did not return after they expired? Or admins who left after being desysopped? Or those who left after being indefinitely blocked on other projects? There are several more like that on the page. None of the ones I've referred to here were for compromised accounts. I repeat, this is unkind and intrusive and serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
PS Clicking on a random name in the list led me to an editor who allegedly "stopped editing" in 2009, but it turns out they were blocked as the sock of another editor who was unblocked two years later and was still editing as of yesterday. The sock whose name appears on the list is still indefinitely blocked. How many more are there like this? Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: WP:SOFIXIT. Keep beating that strawman but this page has already survived AfD a few times. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I fixed it for you, and removed a couple more names, as well. I'd like to point out that Pathoschild blocked NSR a year and a half after they stopped editing unless there were deleted edits I don't see. That seems like odd blocking behavior and certainly doesn't violate the spirit of the page, but I removed NSR just the same. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
So fix what, Chris? I was not about to remove the five indefinitely blocked/banned editors who were deliberately added to the page fully annotated as such. That indicates that those of you who "maintain" it obviously considered that appropriate (at least until I suggested that it wasn't). As for the account I mentioned in my PS, it is not a straw man to point out the problems with trying to maintain the accuracy of a list like this. The six further blocked editors/sock puppets whom you removed after my comment had been on the list for well over a year. I am also assuming that you still consider it appropriate to document in intrusive detail the troubles of editors who did not return after their block/bans expired, who were blocked on other projects, or were desysopped for cause. You did not remove those or edit their descriptions. So be it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Current sysops[edit]

I notice quite a few administrators on the list who have not edited for a few months but have not been inactive long enough to be desysopped. (Many of them have made the occasional edit, or even use of their tools, after their last noted contribution here but not very recently, so are in WP:List of administrators/Inactive.) Should we hold off on adding admins to the list while they still have ‘the bit’? To me it seems incongruous to have people here who are still on Special:ListUsers/sysop as well.—Odysseus1479 20:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We've been listing users gone only a few months while desysopping for inactivity requires a Wikipedian to be gone at least a year. We could discuss changing the timeframe for adding users (which might be a good idea) but the point at which a formerly-active user goes missing isn't incongruous with a mop, too. Admins walk away from Wikipedia the same as anyone else. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn’t object at all to lengthening the interval. From previous such discussions, though, my understanding of the argument is that people tend to notice the disappearance of an esteemed colleague in a matter of weeks (less, I guess, for the most active, and of course immediately for those who said they were quitting), and will likely forget to add them after too long a waiting period. To that I‘d reply that the more respected they are, the longer they should be expected to be missed—and one might come across their contributions long after they‘ve gone, so come to respect them that way, without having ever interacted. Anyway, I think that’s how the present timeframe came about. Regarding admins, I take your point in the context of the proverbial ‘no big deal’; my reaction may be partly due to a misplaced sense of lèse majesté.—Odysseus1479 03:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User: liz[edit]

Would someone please add User: Liz to the list? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

User:Colonel Warden[edit]

Would someone please add User:Colonel Warden to the list? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: user is still active on their main account. Agathoclea (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Agathoclea: Thanks for responding (and pinging me). I am not sure what you mean when you say "main account" -- does this user have other accounts? In any event when I look at the user's contribution history I see the last edit on: 24 November 2016 which is less than the required 3 months of inactivity, but on his user page the user clearly says: "Colonel Warden was a Wikipedia contributor and editor from 26 February 2006" which to me is equivalent to a retirement notice. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Under “Affiliations“ on that same user page is a box saying that it’s a policy-compliant alternate account.—Odysseus1479 09:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hello. Not active really anymore but may come back once in awhile. I am still alive, anyway. ~~ IvoShandor (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians who now use a new name[edit]

There may be Wikipedians who long ago used one name to make Wikipedia edits, but now use a new name owing to technological difficulties (N.B. this is not a use of sock puppetry). For example, I used to make edits under the name ACEOREVIVED, but owing to problems I was off-line and now that I am back online, I edit under the name Vorbee. Could this explain how some of these so-called missing Wikipedians could be revived?Vorbee (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)