Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians/Archive 2

Add users?
With in the last week 3 admins, Essjay, Doc glascow, and Robchurch have appeared to have left. Should I add them now. --Aranda 56 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

With Hajor that is 4! If you are sure they have left definitely add them, SqueakBox 17:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * With any user, but especially admins, wait a month before even thinking about adding them to this list. There are at least a dozen admins who have been added to this list and then returned, most of them fairly quickly. I can think of at least one admin who has been on this list at least twice, who is now back editing. Blank Verse 20:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't forget Kate. It may be a while before those links to her edit-counting tool are working again. If you add the other admins, add her also. --TantalumTelluride 06:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Essjay, Doc glasgow, and Robchurch have all returned to some extent. All of them are too active to be on the list. Hajor has shown no sign of returning, so he should remain on the list. Kate has not been very active, but she consistently makes at least couple of edits per week and probably should not be on the list. --TantalumT e lluride 21:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already removed myself from the list. -- Essjay ·   Talk 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we add Zscout370? He last editted back in April, almost half a month ago, and apparently isn't on break. --maru  (talk)  contribs 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Scimitar
He had listed himself when he left (10 Nov. 2005), but this was unlisted somehow. I have relisted him. He has not edited since 10 Nov., and I do miss him. Also, in the same edit, I removed HighHopes, as I concur with Squeakbox above. Xoloz 18:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

HighHopes left a message on my talk page saying he had left, had actually made more than 2 edits, and would I please leave it in. Strange, SqueakBox 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

HighHopes
Last edited 3 days ago so has no right to be on this list. He isn't missing. Nor do we want his soap bnox rant about wikipedia. Go take it to a forum which wikipedia is not, SqueakBox 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco's reverts
SEW, please stop the blind reverting. The page says to include only people who were integrated into the community, and who are genuinely missing. was never integrated into the community so far as I know (he had been here only a short time) and is still editing despite having announced his departure many, many times. had made only 220 edits to articles, was a troll, was banned by the arbcom, and then came straight back with a sock puppet, so he isn't missing either. This page isn't for every single account that has ever stopped editing, or promised to. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I echo SV's comment. Take a look at the introductory text in this section: this page is for long time contributors who have left for some reason or another. Not only are Zordrac and Zephram Stark NOT long time contributors, but Zordrac has made an edit (thus is not missing), and Zephram Stark is currently banned (and users aren't usually listed here while they are banned: usually after the ban ends and they leave voluntarily). Therefore, this is a double-whammy for why those two don't belong here. --Deathphoenix 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move
Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza, this page has been moved to a subpage of Esperanza and will be used in conjunction with Esperanza's alert page as a record of "Leaving-Wikipedia" alerts that are not successful in encouraging users to stay. Non-Esperanzans are welcome to edit and help maintain the page. --TantalumT e lluride 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I think not. This should have been discussed at the talk page of the page to be moved. In any case, this page isn't the sole property or responsibility of a wikiproject. &mdash; Dan | talk 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. The only users involved in the discussion were members of Esperanza. The move should have been proposed and discussed here first. Please understand that we are just trying to reduce incivilty and edit warring on this page while at the same time providing encouragement to users who are thinking about leaving the project. We weren't trying to prevent non-Esperanzans from editing the page. Anyway, I don't think it's really necessary to move Missing Wikipedians to a subpage of Esperanza. Will a couple of links between the two be acceptable instead? --TantalumT e lluride 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, just stick to links between the two. This page was around long before Esperanza. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just added a couple of links to Esperanza/Alerts. Feel free to change the wording or even to revert to the previous version if you don't like the changes. --TantalumT e lluride 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Order of page
I'm just going to toss an idea out there but does anyone else think the page would be more beneficial if it was in chronological order from the "time they left/their last edit"? I'm willing to spend time in reorganizing it if anyone else thinks it's a good idea. — M o e   ε  03:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do see the merit in doing that. However, I think it might be better to keep the alphabetical listing, since some editors come to the page looking to update the entry of a specific person. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it would be easier to find specific people if it remains alpha sorted, and this is probably better. Jonathunder 06:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Corvus13
It's worth noting that Corvus13's last edit was in November 2001, before all revisions of pages were archived. If you look at his contribution history, you'll see even the edit of his leaving message doesn't exist anymore in the Wikipedia archive (that's why I just added the month and year instead of the exact day). He may only have 91 archived edits, but I'm sure he made a lot more. BillyH 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

First known deceased Wikipedian?
Pjacobi 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACaroline_Thompson&diff=39122972&oldid=37798708


 * Actually, died earlier - on 2005-7-22. --TML1988 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually a bit concerned about user:Buttered Bread. According to his user page, "I was born with HIV, because my parents had it, they have both since died from diseases caused by having HIV"; he also says he was born in 1983, meaning he's had HIV for over 20 years. He started editing in late November, edited extremely regularly for the next couple of weeks, and then vanished. On December 25, he showed up to make this edit stating he's been extremely sick, and in and out of the hospital. He hasn't edited since. About a week ago, I sent him an email asking if he's OK, and I have gotten no response. Raul654 18:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If these people are dead, should we put a note on their user pages?--Cúchullain t c 07:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's already one for . Are we sure about Kwantus or Buttered Bread?--Cúchullain t c 07:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out Deceased Wikipedians - Kwantus is confirmed, but Buttered Bread has neither been confirmed nor reported, just suspected. --TML1988 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sort by date
Is it posible to sort this by date? &#8212; Cool CatTalk 23:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it is. Whether someone should or will are different questions. --maru (talk) contribs 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not add yourself
Who would do that? Obviously you're not missing: You're lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuffyz (talk • contribs)

Alot of people acually added themselves before when they tried to leave wikipedia. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that users who are leaving Wikipedia should be permitted to add themselves. There is no greater expert on persons who have decided to leave than the persons themselves.  63.3.19.1 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cortonin
Should we really have Cortonin on the list, if Cortonin was banned (even if only from some articles)? --maru  (talk)  contribs 04:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned users
What should we do about banned users? We still have AI listed here.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And Mike Garcia isn't listed. He hadn't edited since August 8, and he made some edits on September 4 that resulted in him getting blocked. I don't know what's going on, but I think he did so much work here he deserves to be listed.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I added Mike. If anyone knows more about this situation or has a problem with him being added, please do speak up.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He's really not missing, we know where he's at - he's banned. Can't come back like the other missing ones can. Hbdragon88 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me that the reason someone was banned should be of paramount importance. Those who kick against the goads of Wikipedia and are blocked as a result should certainly be included.  Those who aren't constructive need not be.  63.3.19.1 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Date consistency
I've been seeing three formats - YY/MM/DD, MM/DD/YY, and DD/MM/YY. Can we get some consistency here? Hbdragon88 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Danakil
Danakil's last edit was in fact on Sep.14th,check his/her user contributions.

Report a Wikipedian
October 6th 2006, Camembert made a few edits. So, he isn't missing anymore. --66.218.12.60 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thenr remove the user. Kil  o • T  18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reporting a Wikipedian. Wernda said on his talk page, "'I have decided, after much consideration, to discontinue my support for Wikipedia indefinitely. The project has become simply too nasty for me. I will edit actively on other Wikimedia projects. If you need me, email me, or contact me on another project.'"--Werdna 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Probable reason: "The request for adminship on this bot was just closed by Taxman with no consensus."


 * The above statement by Wernda is just the sort of thing that should be published inclusive on the list of missing Wikipedians. In the words of Jacqueline Kennedy, "Let them see what they've done."  63.3.19.1 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:º¡º
He's confirming he's User:O^O. Should we remove him from the list? - Emir214 06:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

removal
A rather large percentage of those who are on the list are active again. Perhaps we should remove those who've edited frequently lately? [wossi]


 * That's what's supposed to be done. --Gwern (contribs) 03:53 15 December 2006 (GMT)

Notability
How is this notable in any way?128.193.238.6 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because these people were valuable editors. That's not notable in the outside world, but then again, this isn't an article, it's a project page (see the Wikipedia: in the title). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is also notable for the sheer number of valuable contributors who have been driven away. This is why I have advocated elsewhere on this page that the threshold ought to be lowered.  63.3.19.1 (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

500 edits rule?
There is no mentioned rule. took away because he has less than 500 edits. If there is a 500 edit rule, please show it to me. -Yancyfry


 * It's not a hard and fast rule, but as it says at the top of the page: "Please do not add people to this list who were never an integral part of the community. Most of the people in the list made well over 1,000 edits." We've been removing users who made less than 1000.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1000 edit rule is hard to understand. If a scientist writes two articles which nicely summarize his specialty and both are deleted resulting in that scientist refusing to contribute anymore well that scientist's name should go on this list. If the loss of important contributions isn’t the point of this list what is?

As mentioned in the economist: There is a limit to how much information a group of predominantly non-specialist volunteers, armed with a search engine, can create and edit. Producing articles about specialist subjects such as Solidarity activists, as opposed to Pokémon characters, requires expert knowledge from contributors and editors...To create a new article on Wikipedia and be sure that it will survive, you need to be able to write a “deletionist-proof” entry and ensure that you have enough online backing (such as Google matches) to convince the increasingly picky Wikipedia people of its importance. This raises the threshold for writing articles so high that very few people actually do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.41 (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto to the Economist article. As for 1000 edits, if anyone below that threshold is not considered important they should be permitted to delete their contributions en masse.  Yeah, I know, GFDL and all that, but if the contributors and their efforts are not appreciated, they ought to remove them. 63.3.19.1 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerryseinfeld blocked indefinitely.
I recently found that that Jerryseinfeld had been blocked indefinitely by RadioKirk in September 2006. Would it be worth putting this piece of information in? After all, since the user is blocked indefinitely, they'll never edit again with that account. Acalamari 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the indefinitely blocked user from a list. 75.36.241.255 05:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Acalamari 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thousand edit rule
Well, I guess I can retire now. After I click Save, I will have 1308 edits. -Yancyfry 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Still editing... ;-) I suppose you have to be really stressed to retire don't you? By choice anyway.  Lra drama 13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reform
The result of the MFD was keep. However, this list needs some serious pruning as it is becoming very large. There are some useful suggestions in the MFD discussion. --Core desat 05:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the page should be longer. The edit threshold should be lower (say 100 notable edits), and people should be permitted to add themselves, along with a brief one-line statement about why they left.  Such a project might finally get Wikipedia to realize that it is driving away valuable contributors with the speed of rabbits multiplying, using the cyber-equivalent of a buggy whip.  63.3.19.1 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RadioKirk
I've added the former administrator RadioKirk, because he announced his was inactive on April 3rd 2007. He came back very, very briefly on May 16th 2007, but only to announce that his (quote) 'administrative access has been removed by request' on his userpage. So I think he should definately be added.  Lra drama 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Maybe we could make the 1000 edit rule an exception when the member did something notable like write a featured article. Cheers, Je t  Lover   23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We could do pretty much anything, it's not a hard and fast rule, it's just there to keep the page from getting too long, it's already very long.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding people to list User:Cuchullain vs. User:IPSOS have different criteria for removing people frost
I added two people to the list that were very meaningful to me. I have had User:Cuchullain and then User:IPSOS remove the names from the list according to their various biases. User:Cuchullain removed them saying that they had less than 1000 edits and that was the criteria. User:IPSOS added several people to the list with less than 1000 edits, but removed my names because they did not fulfill his mainspace criteria. I believe I should be able to add people who were meaningful to me and a group of editors. Regards, --Mattisse 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, one has 7 mainspace edits, the other did nothing but tag and revert. Quite frankly, they look like somebody's sockpuppets. Why would this sort of editor mean so much to you? IPSOS (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because he was accused as a sock puppet from the get go and spent the whole time (about three months) defending himself, he never got a chance to do anything elso until he was driven out. He was eventually warn down and driven off by the massive organized accusations of sock puppetry, plus constantly being reported on AN/I, being unwillingly added to complaints RFC's and  Arbitrations etc. But ask User:Salix alba what happened. I can give you other names if you want. The check user showed that that he was not a sock puppet as did suspected sock puppet investigations. There is no a question now that he was not a sock puppet. User:Salix alba, User:BostonMA, and many others were involved and hurt by what happened. User:Salix alba said that what happened to User:Timmy12 was the worst outcome of the Starwood Arbitration and the resulting discovery of massive sock puppetry. With the other name I added, it was even sadder but I could not get help for him. I still few a huge amount of sadness. He was unknowingly caught up in the sock puppet abuse but was too innocent to defend himself or even get help. There was never a question that he was a sock puppet. His name was . I am sorry that you do not understand, but I believe these individuals should be remembered, not only for the pain they endured, but it would help to bring to Wikipedia's these wrongs in the hopes of preventing them in the future. --Mattisse 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no sockpuppet tags in the history of User:MensKeperRa. I also see that on June 15 his user page was changed to say that he was back. I see no reason to list him as missing. As for Timmy12, looking at his history, he appears to have been a serial tagger and revert warrior. I've seen people like that blocked within their first 24 hours. Wonder why this one wasn't. IPSOS (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I didn't come up with the 1000 edits thing, it was in effect before I even came to Wikipedia, let alone started editing WP:MW. It's not fair for me to take crap for enforcing it, I just happen to be the one who's done the most work maintaining the page. As for the length, yes, people do think the page is too long - it was even nominated for deletion partially on those grounds. If we added every person who ever made a few edits, the page would be even more impossibly long.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALERT inactive.
This page mentions adding your name to WP:ALERT instead of here, but that project is inactive. Curious as to how someone ought proceed. Not for myself, of course, but it strikes me that that would stress users more. Denna Haldane 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

She hasn't left officially!!!
Just a note: Phaedrial hasn't left officially. Until she leaves a goodbye message or hasn't made any edits for a long-period of time, it should not be implied that she has officially left. -Yancyfry 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not Dead..
Plato (talk • contribs • count) - Last edit for a while was 14 May 2005. It had been reported on this page that he had died (and he was asked about this on his talk page), but he made three edits between 1 February - 2 February 2006. I'm not dead! I'm very much alive--Plato 06:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Can someone please remove this? --Plato 05:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Proflicial"?
BostonMA's line contains the phrase, "stopped editing proflicially in February". Looks like the author meant "officially" or "prolifically". "Proflicially" isn't a word; it turns up 2 Google results, one of which is this page. It should be corrected by someone who knows which word is appropriate for BostonMA. 64.222.229.46 (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Reformatting - Opinions Wanted
I've been bold and done some reformatting on the # section of the list. Where details were provided I've largely preserved them, but in each case have added (or augmented):


 * The date and time of the most recent edit made by the user;
 * Where not already provided, a note if the user posted a message about leaving or editing intermittently, blanked their pages etc.; and
 * Provided a brief (one sentence max) summation of their level of editing, whether "prolific" (e.g. every day), "regular" (e.g. every week), "periodic" (e.g. every month) or "intermittent" (e.g. whenever they feel like it).

I intend to proceed with the other sections, but wanted to get opinions from people before doing so, and so am placing this notice here to see if I can get a consensus to proceed (obviously I won't if one is not forthcoming). I commit to refrain from making further reformatting edits for one week from this posting, to allow consensus to form. If there are no responses, I will take that to mean I am OK to proceed.

So, what are your thoughts? &mdash; digital eon  &bull; talk @ 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The bold text on the last edit is just too much. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've removed the bold formatting for the &quot;Last edit:&quot; text. How does it look now? &mdash; digital eon  &bull; talk @ 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see a need for the changes. I agree with Mtmelendez that the bold is too much, and adding a down to the minute time for the last edit isn't really needed. I think just the date would be nice. I also don't like the assessment of what type of editor they were (prolific, regular etc). There is really no need to classify editors that way. If they were extremely prolific, that might be one thing, but otherwise I don't see a need or justification. I (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You make some good points. Per above I've removed the bold formatting, and have also reduced the timestamp to just the date; in concert with linking, the date now auto-parses (and thus shows up according to the viewers' date & time display preferences... I'd forgotten about that when doing the timestamps, since I use the default display preference).


 * My thinking on the classification was that it would help provide some context to the persons' departure, however on reflection it doesn't really add anything (since it is based upon a cursory inspection of the users' contributions, which are linked anyway) and the way I stated it bordered on being WP:OR. Thus I have now removed them, too.


 * Does this look OK now? I would still like to proceed with altering the other sections, based upon this changed version, since I still feel it would improve this page. &mdash; digital eon  &bull; talk @ 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If the dates can be unlinked, I would prefer that personally (I hate date linking of any sort), but it's not a huge deal at all. Other than that, I believe that how the first secion looks is excellent, and there are no objections from me if you wish to do this with all of them. I (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work, Digitaleon, I'd say go ahead and do the other sections. As to liking dates, Soleil, they need to be linked so that autoformatting can work, see here. That's the only reason it is done, as far as I know.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's my understanding as well. I (Soleil), I want to thank you for taking the time to review and respond :-) Thanks also to you Cúchullain for endorsing the changes. I intend to proceed with them in a few days' time (once the one week in my original post has expired). Cheers! &mdash; digital eon  &bull; talk @ 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The time period allowed for consensus to form has elapsed. Based upon the above, I judge there is sufficient cosensus to proceed with updating the page, and will be doing so, section by section, during the coming days / weeks. Thankyou to everyone that had input. If there are any issues that come up whilst doing this, please leave a message either here or on my talk. Cheers! &mdash; digital eon  &bull; talk @ 15:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me if there's a place for this page at all it shouldn't be a manually edited page, but an automatically generated page with well documented criteria. Right now it's really not terribly accurate, even supposing everyone agreed on the criteria, and I see no reason to believe that would change without a move to automation. Hmoulding (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Update
When I started working on this, I didn't imagine I would end up being a candidate for the list itself! Unfortunately, that's what's happened; you can see my reasons on my user and user talk pages. My apologies for not completing this work. My plan had been to contribute to policy discussions (amidst regular article edits) using the myriad valedictions listed here as a basis. Both items are open for others to continue with if they wish. All the best, &mdash;  digital eon  &bull; talk @ 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)