Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I like this page and the thought behind it. OK so they a sort of obituaries but is good to acknowledge former contributors. ping 06:37, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I moved these 2 off the page. Interesting stories but they have not left and are not missing. I also moved April as she may not have completely left - last contributed a week ago. Angela 22:33, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

• User:Stevertigo (returned) "I left for a while this summer after the whole 'smear SV as an anti-Semite campaign' got out of hand--No hard feelings now, the original culprits--me and the the other party (it takes two to tango) have both curbed our use of provocation to effect a change in POV. I also learned that when people (those who cant win an argument with reason, facts, wit...) resort to sticking labels on you, Kung Fu will not work. A little patience and maybe some Tai Chi do work--but trying to fight the irrationality with rationality (or try explaining the unexlainable) will never be easy. I simply left for a while and came back--a lot less edits, but in fact a lot of us go overboard with when we get into something new. I only edit reasonable amounts now--no burnout."-SV

• The Cunctator: Returned but with sharply curtailed editing, and will soon cease all together, due to treatment by LMS and the institution of what The Cunctator perceives as autocratic policies on Wikipedia. Or not... he hasn't left yet.

• irismeister 19:49, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC): I'm sort of a living dead already, so in good medical faith I must report myself here :O) In France we call them revenant. Just wanted to celebrate my 100th ban in my first year in Wiki. 83% of my total Wiki time has been generously spent in RfCs, and 54% of my total contributions have dissapeared from Wiki without a trace. However, that gave me that special deep peace of mind that only living dead seem to advertize these days :O) Happy serene editing - irismeister 19:49, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

---

This is one of the sickest pages I've come across here at Wikipedia. Not just to the uninitiated it reads as if the bullies clap each other on the back each time a frustrated contributor has left the community. I'm appalled by the speculations they then seem to indulge in. Below see part of Renata's reply (of August 8, 2003) to my e-mail and then compare what it says about her on this page:

Hello Kurt,

it's nice to be missed  ;-) [...] I also found it difficult to be in the firing line a few times. Most people let one get on with one's work, but there are always some who make life more difficult than it needs to be. In the end I was dreading even just logging on! [...]

KF 17:10, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the page KF. It is a way to recognise or announce that people have left. Otherwise there's no record. They just disappear. It is most certainly not a celebration of the fact they have left. Quite the opposite. If you have different information on Renata, why on earth not just edit the page and let G-Man know his mistake? Angela

"This is a list of missing Wikipedians who were once an integral part of our community, and who have died, been incapacitated, been incarcerated, or decided to leave forever, join a cult, have tired of vandalism and/or policy, found a job, or have some otherwise lame or legitimate excuse for leaving."

If that introductory paragraph is not making fun of people who have left, what is? I've read several of the user pages, among them Stormwriter's, who says that "never have I encountered such a consistently rude, offensive collection of individuals. Not on UseNet, not on AOL, not in 'real life'.

"Impassioned debate due to intellectual disagreement is one thing; it's the only way humans progress. Ad hominem name-calling is another. Attempts to moderate the debates only results in the name-callers shifting their attention to those attempting to moderate. [...]

"This project had a wonderful potential. Now it's drowning in a sea of recriminations, ridiculous rules, and smug self-satisfaction among the self-appointed elite. I cannot accept this situation. Enjoy your toy, folks, until it crumbles under you. In the future, I suspect that hardly anyone, with the exception of those who enjoy fighting just for the hell of it, will stay long enough anymore to make more than a few contributions. Let's leave it to them. Sayonara."

I don't know any of Stormwriter's contributions, but whatever his fields of interest may be: What he writes pretty well sums up why people leave or -- something not recognized or registered here -- why many decide to restrict themselves to a few minor edits rather than carry on like before. Ridiculing them by claiming they have joined a cult or found a job or whatever is not going to help stop the brain drain.

Also, why this obsession with record-keeping? Can't we leave people alone, not even after they have left? However, if you really wanted to appreciate the work they did for Wikipedia before their departure, why not list some representative contributions of theirs and, unknown to the community at large, send them an e-mail, ask them why they have left and try to persuade them to come back?

P S I don't know G-Man, and as it takes an average of 90 seconds per try and at least two attempts to get to the page history I really didn't bother to find out who wrote what.

KF 21:24, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So rewrite the intro. I can't understand why you are accusing me of having an obsession with record keeping and I don't see how this is in any way harrasing anyone who has left. Why don't you list their contributions instead of complaining about the page? And I have e-mailed people that have left so please stop making false assumptions and accusations. Angela 21:51, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

I am one of those who left. The page is fine. Leave Angela alone.Ark30inf 22:01, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not again, please not again. Didn't I just point out that I had no idea who was behind this page? Last time I was threatening you, now I'm accusing you. This, I believe, is exactly the "sea of recriminations, ridiculous rules, and smug self-satisfaction among the self-appointed elite" Stormwriter is referring to. I still hold that talk pages have been created for users to be able to talk about articles. So why would I want to make some rash changes to the introduction of an article rather than discuss it on the talk page, especially if it's an article I don't like in the first place?

And then Ark30inf comes along and tells me to "leave Angela alone". Where did I mention her name? I don't believe this. --KF 22:16, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Believe it. You are blowing a vein in outrage over a page that is perfectly fine, as well as relatively unimportant. The conclusions you have drawn about the page and what it intends are completely, clearly, and absolutely off base. The page is OBVIOUSLY here as a mention of who has left the project. It is OBVIOUSLY not intended to make a judgement on those of us who left. I'm one of those who is no longer participating so I think I am in a better position to judge if it is insulting or offensive to me than you are. Since I'm not part of the project any more I am free to say, "take a pill". -- Ark30inf

Thank you Ark30inf and it's nice to see you back even if only briefly. Angela 23:04, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Everyone should get less testy and feel more Wikilove. The introduction is obviously meant to be sarcastic and humorous, and not an invective to shame people into staying. Wikipedia namespace is filled with pages that try to inject some dry humour into otherwise depressing pages -- m:Academic standards kick comes to mind. I've always seen this page as part informative ("What ever happened to...") and part homage. Never as a spiteful wall of shame. Fuzheado 23:13, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

nod. Sorry but people leaving upsets me so I'm more likely to be aggravated and take criticism personally on a page such as this where I am reminded of the fact that various people have gone. I am quite sure sv never meant the introduction as insulting, and I did not take it that way when he created the page and listed me on it. Angela, formerly-missing Wikipedian [1]

We've lost another two...

I just happened to notice this, but User:Ark30inf is leaving after just 2 months -- So long y'all. I have found that if you are not here to do battle then nobody will listen to you. Thats not what I am about. Hopefully, the project will mature at some point. Good luck to all. I know people often take a break and come back, but I don't know that this will happen with this user. Check out the user page for someone who has strong opinions, but seemed to be able to do well with NPOV and thoughful contributions and comments. It's worth checking out the observations they left at the bottom of their user page. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:03, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A shame, and I'm sorry to see him go; I hope a while away from the place and cooling off and he'll want to come back. I'm not confident about it, but I hope.

I think there is a certain personality required on here if you're going to get involved in any kind of controversial place in Wikipedia. You can't let them get to you. You have to realise that the idiots aren't the place. You have to be able to deal with the fact that the twits might have more energy than you do. --Morven 05:37, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I didn't have much interaction with Ark30inf, but what I read from her/him on talk pages and such, displayed a great understanding of what Wikipedia should be about. A big loss, if he/she won't reconsider. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 05:58, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

My POV is that this issue is one of the most important for the wikipedia community, maybe the very most important, to ponder at this stage of wikipedia's development. And I do not yet agree with Morven. When I do, I will be out of here.

--Ruhrjung 12:14, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ark30inf listed some very salient observations on his user page. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia has become something of an advocacy site to some people, such as the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" Ark30inf mentions. He has exactly the right NPOV spirit that, alas, is not as widespread among contributors as it should be. Wikipedia still has much maturing to do, and I hope he will want to be a part of it. -- Minesweeper 06:42, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

So Arkinf30 thinks this environment isn't mature enough. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps Arkinf30 wasn't mature enough to handle a completely open, international public forum as this with no formal hierarchy and contributors with highly diverse backgrounds and points-of-views (what he in his parochialism calls "agendas"). Perhaps he will return when he has matured; if not, aside from a few state parks and whatever in Arkansas that haven't been written up, I would say: no great loss. -- Viajero 12:14, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but I do hope that we can become more open to people who aren't particularly interested in engaging in "revert wars." And is you look at his complete list of user contributions here, he did quite a bit more than a few state parks.... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:31, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think what he has a problem with is not people with different POVs but people who try to push their POVs in encyclopedia articles. I agree with him completely about that. So many articles consist of person one saying: Some people believe <my POV>. Then person two adds: Other people, however, believe that <my POV>. What a mess. An article filled with this kind of POV-in-NPOV-clothing reads like a debate, not an encyclopedia article. Axlrosen 13:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How else do you present alternative points-of-view? Some people believe that Mother Teresa is a saint, others that she is a witch. Perhaps you would prefer only one author per article? Actually, Adam Carr -- a single author -- wrote an alternative version of the MT article with exactly that structure. And it reads like a real encyclopedia article. -- Viajero 14:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I guess my point is that a real encyclopedia article would spend 90% of its time on the facts of her life, her work, etc., and 10% of its time on the controversy surrounding her. On Wikipedia this often gets reversed, because everyone has to make sure that their own POV is represented (prefixed of course by "some people say..."). If you try to trim down all the debate in an article, then people accuse you of surpressing opinions that make you uncomfortable or whatever. (I'm not talking about the MT article specifically because I haven't been following that debate, but about WP in general. For example this is what happened on PETA recently.) Axlrosen 18:07, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, WP has a bunch of editors who are only here to "get the word out" about some cause while paying lip service to NPOV; you can see it when completely obscure causes and their activists get long articles with pictures, and important "establishment" figures have stubs or are lacking them altogether. That's not being encyclopedic, that's using WP as free advertising. Although I don't share Ark's politics, his criticisms are dead-on. Stan 14:07, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Some of that, of course, is simply writing what you know, which is inevitable. Plus, people are more confident in their knowledge the more obscure the subject (or at least, are more confident that others won't know more!) I think people often get intimidated about writing about more important individuals.

I've definitely seen that 'six degrees' thing going on too - when someone has some agenda or issue they deem so important that it must be mentioned not just on the most relevant page, but every single page associated with the topic. To pick a smaller topic than George W. Bush, another is the person or people who insist on pushing their agenda that Erwin Komenda was the true designer of the VW Beetle and early Porsches, and that Ferdinand and Ferry Porsche are credited for work that isn't their own. Now, there might be SOME truth to that belief -- but that doesn't mean every single page related to Porsche needs a sentence or two and a link about that issue. It makes Wikipedia seem to be pushing an agenda rather than documenting, and I don't think such partisans realise that by overstating their case they ruin it. --Morven 16:42, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can identify with this situation clearly- which has risen for me today after three months of participation. There is no way of reaching NPOV if someone has a viewpoint they want to force others on and one can't persevere due to obvious reasons - (see my call for help below). I can safely state that as it stands right now, the intro to the page on Hinduism is totally POV. Religion seems to attract extreme reactions and those who persevere need strong motivations - which only comes through extreme faith or for reasons of the sense of power and triumph associated with prevailing. KRS 19:06, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And another one...User:Smith03.

This is time to reflect on Larry Sanger's parting words of advice

to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,

to be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,

to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,

to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project,

to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,

to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well

I want people to feel comfortable here. Please help others respect others. Kingturtle 23:19, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I think as Wikipedia grows we are going to see more and more of this. I think we need a culture shift (or I suspect maybe to reverse a culture shift that is already happening) if we are to avoid having the number of active contributors level out.

Some time ago I raised an issue on the Pump which had it occurred a little earlier in my Wikipedia "career" would probably have resulted in my leaving. Now I don't want to criticise anyone involved in it. Rather I'd like to say that I think nobody was to blame, rather it indicates a culture that I think we need to work on. I've also acknowledged that I was at fault myself in several areas in this particular incident.

Just to set the background however, a stub I had created was (to my mind) vandalised by a widely respected old hand. I reverted the facetious comment they had left (in the article namespace, I stress), and they immediately reverted my reversion putting their facetious comment back. Now I don't want to dwell on the rights and wrongs of these actions, nor on mine, I admit the stub was substandard and that my summary when I reverted was rude and uncalled for.

What I do want to point out that the community reaction was heavily in support of the person who made thus facetious edit, twice. When I raised the issue on the pump, one person said "I don't see what you are making a fuss about". There was so far as I can see no censure for the facetious comment, nor has there ever been any apology, unless you count the perpetrator admitting that perhaps they were "too rude". I don't. I think any rudeness towards a newcomer making an honest mistake is totally unacceptable, and to immediately repeat the offence when challenged... words fail me. But again, I don't want to dwell on the adequacy or otherwise of the apology. What I'm more interested in is that this muted retraction drew no comment at all from anyone else.

I think this shows something about the Wikipedia culture.

At the time I made a few suggestions regarding established practices that IMO make it more difficult for newcomers to become established. As a relative newcomer I think I can contribute there, but again, there seemed little interest.

Food for thought? Andrewa 23:10, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Self removal

Um... do I just remove my name from the list? I didn't have proper net access for the last six months. I tried leaving a message on my user page, but since I only had access in a public library I couldn't log in, and a few words were stripped out by the censorware. -- Jim Regan 05:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes - just go ahead and remove your name . →Raul654 05:20, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Depressing

Man this page (main and talk) is depressing. Zoney 22:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

No argument there. Eulogies are rarely cheerful. Especially when they write their own, commit suicide, and blame you. Thankfully, it's just a website :) --Ben Brockert 03:29, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if memory serves, someone *did* post a suicide note here (to wikipedia) about a year ago. →Raul654 03:32, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

I hope it wasn't wikipedia-related. Perhaps I shouldn't use suicide in my metaphors. --Ben Brockert 22:43, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for digression. IMO it's however better to have an eulogy which blames me: my husband left no line for me. I was asked what will we have for breakfast and he replid, Ah, I see. He left his breakfast and has gone.

Missing?

I'm not really missing so much as lost for a very long time... The reason is spelled out in words you gafflews can probably understand at Tuf-Kat. I don't know if that means I deserve to be on this page or not. Tuf-Kat 06:18, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

If you don't know what a gafflew is, you are such a kamva! Tuf-Kat

Isis

Image:Opera house.JPG

Does somebody know Isis ? Or know something about the picture of Opéra Garnier (Paris) he downloaded : I would like two know if there is copyright on it, for french wiki. (Sorry, my english is very bad !). Mathounette 09:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From what I've read, Isis uploaded a large number of images that are likely copyright infringements. I wouldn't upload it anywhere else if I were you. Guanaco 22:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Repeatedly missing

If someone "leaves" Wikipedia on a regular basis, and has done so consistently since they started on Wikipedia, would it be possible to not put them on the page until they've been gone for a few months? User:Lucky 6.9 would be a specific example of this. I was "missing" from July 29th to yesterday (more or less, I snuck two edits in there). And yet I was not listed because there was a good chance I would be back, as has always been the case with him. --Ben Brockert 21:33, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Where are all the old hands?

Whenever I go through "Recent changes" these days hardly any of the contributors is familiar to me. Where are all the old hands? Some, it is true, have announced their retirement or semi-retirement (sadly, Fonzy is among them), but what about the others? In this context I am still wondering if the list of "missing Wikipedians" is any good: Lots of people, it seems to me, have really really departed but have remained undetected; others may inadvertently have been encouraged to throw in the towel after finding their name on this list and concluding that they have already been written off anyway.

To me, Wikipedia seems to have become a revolving door, with people coming and going much faster than they used to only one or two years ago. This is fine with me of course, but I do notice, and I am happy about, people like Ortolan88 returning after more than a year's leave.

I am sorry for those who, on joining Wikipedia, had big plans, long to-do lists and a lot of enthusiasm but who, after only a short time, vanished into thin air, often leaving behind unfinished work to be completed (or reverted) by others. Some even caused upheaval by introducing major (unnecessary and/or disruptive) changes before buggering off again. I do hope that those with serious intentions had some fun contributing to Wikipedia, despite the short period of time they were around.

It has been pointed out countless times—and it has been a major reason for many to leave this place—that Wikipedia seems to be teeming with people whose egos are too big, who cannot work in a team, and who cannot compromise. This certainly seems to be true. On the other hand, there are lots of great people working here—this is a talk page, remember, no need to be NPOV here, is there?

So again, where are all the old hands who, fortunately, have not made it onto the missing Wikipedians list? <KF> 21:48, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedianism is not a lifelong activity. Derek Ramsey, the top contributor of all time, has been gone for almost a year. I personally regret the disappearance of spelling champion User:Maximus Rex, and some other heroes are sadly missed.

There is a precarious cycle where perfectly good editors are drawn into adminship, controversy, troll- and vandal-warring and policy matters. Someone should tell newly adminned editors that they should keep on contributing to articles, particularily ones that do not attract controversy. I have had my share of bickering over Judaism articles, warred with some trolls and have had "JUDE JUDE" plastered over my userpage, but always had the benefit of being able to fall back on medical subjects, which are rarely POV battlegrounds.

I would certainly recommend a retaining policy for good editors. While granting more privileges would be unwise, it might be nice to form a content conference or another clique of highly experienced editors who do not care for administrative tasks and rather sink their teeth into something more substantial that does not involve vandals and that nice [rollback] button.

Apart from the above, a much tighter "mood pollution" policy may produce some results. Some ideas: 1. Every personal attack is a bannable offense, 2. The three-revert rule is enforced as strictly as possible, 3. It must become easier to ban editors from articles they edit war over continuously. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards - this is a lot like what I was suggesting above. JFW | T@lk 18:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flag of Syldavia

• You posted this picture a little over a year ago, but you haven't included any sort of copyright notice with it. -Litefantastic 13:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wha? Perhaps this would be better suited to User talk:Vancouverguy. I see that his user page redirects to Missing Wikipedians, perhaps it would be best to just put it up for deletion along with the images pointed out by SimonP. --Ben Brockert 23:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

January 15 Seattle meetup

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:09, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

User:Wik

This page states:

• Wik: Last edit May 21, 2004. Returned under the username Gzornenplatz

I was just wondering if this had been established as fact somewhere, or if this is someone being deliberately controversial? -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 11:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Moved from another page:

Gzornenplatz

While it is not self-evident, we eventually came to the conclusion, with the help of Tim Sterling, that Gzornenplatz is a reincarnation of Wik. These matters are difficult to spot right off, but over time the personality of a Wikipedia editor will fall into a recognizable pattern which can be recognized if they attract enough attention. Proof, as in this case, comes from determining whether both users are editing from the same ip. Fred Bauder 22:42, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Formerly missing

I think this page should have a section for people who went missing for a while, and came back; I think this for a variety of reasons. For one, I think it's less depressing, when someone leaves, to be able to see a list of people who left but later came back. Also, sometimes people have useful things to say when the return, and right now those comments (e.g. the one I left here) are disappearing into the history. It's also kind of interesting data. What does everyone think? Noel (talk) 05:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps on another page, like Wikipedia:Returned Wikipedians? —Ben Brockert (42) 23:06, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend that Noel is bold and sets up a new section at the bottom of this page:) jguk 23:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would congratulate him on his boldness, and then be bold and move the content to another page, such as Returned Wikipedians, providing a link on WP:MW. :-) —Ben Brockert (42) 23:59, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Prodigal Wikipedians :)?--Pharos 09:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, a lot of time has been wasted by CheeseDreams, and by TBSDY following her, so they could join the list. Wik/Gzornenplatz/whatever-he-calls-himself-now has wasted many an hour but getting into lame arguments with other Wikipedians. On another tack, Bishonen's toilet paper holder, whilst a pleasant distraction, no doubt took away time that could have been spent on developing Wikipedia. We could also go for anyone who participated in the clitoris or autofellatio debates. Oh, and I suppose I would be on there for spending the time to make this non-productive edit.

That said, I'm not sure a list of prodigal Wikipedians would be worthwhile. Though it would come with a message that anyone who argued strenuously that they shouldn't be there, most certainly should:) jguk 09:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment on this page

Why is there so much drama revolving around an online open-source enctclopedia? Seriously, its nice and all, but why get worked up over the categorization of an article on the demise of betamax or whatever? The missing wikipedians page is telling, not only in that it exists, but also because it reveals the deep emotional investments people have made in a creation that is inherently anonymous. -- anon

Trimming

I have been actively trimming this page of people with recent edits, and those who don't seem to be actually gone. I don't know how productive this page is, but I'm sure it's not productive to have people listed here who edit infrequently, or are just busy for a while in real life. It just makes the project look unnecessarilly contentious. Isomorphic 04:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: if I've removed anyone who strongly considers themselves missing even though they've been around, they can put themselves back in. I just think it's back to encourage melodrama, and to have people listed when they're still editing. Isomorphic 04:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It kind of bothers me that users who get in a snit and leave for a week or two get listed here, while a long-time contributor like Kimiko leaves and no one seems to notice. Isomorphic 04:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If they haven't made at least 1000 edits, and haven't been gone at least three weeks, I don't think they should be listed. How do others feel? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this list should have the same standards as Wikipedians in order of arrival. - SimonP 21:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is possible that an editor can make a significant impact on Wikipedia and be missed with less than a kiloedit. But those cases are rare, so your guideline will work most of the time. —Ben Brockert (42) 23:38, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's bothering me that User:Mike Garcia has been adding spurious entries (he's also added or removed good entries). Maybe he needs to discuss any potential additions to this talk page before adding anything to the list. --Deathphoenix 14:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've left a note on Mike's talk page inviting him to discuss things here before adding users to the main list. --Deathphoenix 14:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at their (the users I tried adding) contributions, that's why I kept restoring users who are missing or not. -- Mike Garcia | talk 03:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding people who have not made a significant number of edits, or who have simply stopped editing for a couple of weeks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

avoiding the potential edit war

to all concerned, please do not use the edit summaries as a vehicle for dialog. please use this talk page instead. also, please review Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, if you haven't recently. Kingturtle 01:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Where's Theresa Knott gone? Is she coming back? jguk 06:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia still does it

Users, please stop reverting the edits on this page. Actually yes, about 12 days without an edit does makes a user missing and there's nothing wrong with that and that doesn't mean you can remove them all. How are you gonna stop me from restoring them? -- Mike Garcia | talk 21:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How long do you have to be gone before you're missing?

Well... there seems to be some question as to what constitutes "missing". It seems clear that if someone leaves "goodbye" messages, then even 1 hour is adequate time to be listed here. Now, I would personally argue that 2 weeks (or even 2 months) is too short a time to consider someone missing. I invite everyone (Mike included, once he's back from his 3RR vacation) to offer their opinions on how long the minimum time should be. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Even if someone says "I'm out of here" I think we should wait a week or so before adding them; more often than not, they return in a couple of days. As for people who just stop editing, I would suggest they be gone a month before they are added to the list. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree we should wait about a week if someone announces that they're leaving. For people who just stop, I would tend to think around two months or so. Twelve days is far too short; we'd endlessly be adding and subtracting a lot of people who, say, take two weeks vacation and the like. JYolkowski // talk 22:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. A few months seems appropriate, and I think immediate listings for people who announce their departure should be discouraged since they tend to return shortly anyway (and the fewer dramatic departures the better). Also (and I thought it would be obvious), vandals and banned users are not Wikipedians and should not be listed here. — Dan | Talk 22:27, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait 2 months. As for banned user etc., of course not, but as I said above, also not users with fewer than 1000 edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, two or three months. Listing someone today who last edited in the 1st week of May 2005 is senseless. People sometimes go to Lanzarote for a fortnight. Or, at this time of year, have a plateful of exams coming up. –Hajor 22:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with this page anyway? Don't people have anything better to do that roam userspace looking for people who have not edited over the past week?

Unless someone is banned, blanks they own user page or announces on it that they are leaving, they really should not be added to this page. That would remove any discretion as to who is or is not gone, and would instantly stop the current dispute.

As for the dispute itself: get real, people, and add some content to the wikipedia.

— Miguel 06:31, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Thank goodness we have you here to enlighten us all on how we should spend our time. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:35, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO this is one of the most self-centered (not to say masturbatory) pages in wikipedia, that's all. — Miguel 06:41, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Hey, at least you're humble... or, rather, your opinion is. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:44, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one could also ask you why you're here criticising others for how they spend their hobby time — shouldn't you be somewhere else adding content to Wikipedia? — Matt Crypto 10:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

did anyone notice

this edit [2]? He hasn't made any edits since June 1 when he speedied his user and talk pages. It's not clearly any of our business (perhaps clearly NOT our business). Is there any relevant policy or guideline? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very disturbing. I'm not sure what to make of it. It would have been nice to see his user page prior to that, but unfortunately, the history is deleted. --Deathphoenix 17:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Using my all-seeing admin powers, there are only three deleted edits to the user page in the history: he moved User:BillCook to User:BillCook/Archival and then blanked it, and then it was deleted. The history is all at User:BillCook/Archival. Still slightly disturbing nonetheless. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

perhaps missing?

Anyone know the whereabouts of user:Ram-Man, User:ClockworkSoul, or user:John Fader? -- Rick Block (talk) 20:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ram-Man made an edit (one edit) yesterday, so is at least not all the way gone. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:34, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians?

Should there be some sort of minimum for an individual to qualify as a missing Wikipedian? User:Pietro, who was recently added only had 223 edits according to Kate's tools. BlankVerse ∅ 14:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Chmod007

Chmod007 seems to have returned according to his user page. I'm not sure what you guys do with the MP page once users return so I shall leave that up to you guys. -Hoekenheef 30 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)

RickK

This article stated that RickK was blocked for violating the 3RR, precipitating his exit. Rick did not break the 3RR, he was reverting a copyright violation. The copyright violation was two paragraphs from adiyamanli.org copied in the Social Impact section, starting with the sentence The Southeastern Anatolia Project encompasses more than dams and tunnels. The purpose...

I corrected this in the article and MattCrypto has reverted me twice now, saying in his edit summary ..Let's just stick to the basic facts, and avoid assigning blame on this page. The problem is that Matt himself assigns blame, and to the wrong person, in spite of the facts (by claiming that RickK was blocked for violating the 3RR, which he didn't). Matt, please look at the facts before maligning someone who isn't here to defend himself anymore. Where is your sense of fair play.

Also, Matt, why are you revert warring without discussing the facts. Are you even interested in the truth? --Duk 17:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

He was still blocked for 3RR, regardless of whether it was a copyvio, and the summary was extremely POV. I don't agree with what happened to RickK, but that kind of POV doesn't belong on this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning the 3RR but leaving out the fact that Rick was correctly removing a copyright violation mis-characterizes the situation. My version mentions both, the current version doesn't. It's a nasty piece of blame laying POV, spun in the wrong direction. Also, I seem to be the only one here arguing with the facts.--Duk 17:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you'd only included that he was reverting CopyVIO and not put in all that other POV it might have been fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, howabout;

RickK (talk · contribs) - One of the most active administrators on recent changes patrol, blanked his talk page and left a rather bitter goodbye message on his user page. His exit came after a revert war where he was removing a copyright violation, in which he was blocked for violating the three revert rule by a fellow administrator.

Duk 17:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's necessary to ascribe blame. We can just say "RickK left the project after a dispute in which he had been blocked by another administrator."(unsigned User:UninvitedCompany)

I have no problem with this version either.--Duk 17:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC), Wait, on second thought, there is a fundamental concept of fairness being violated here, Rick was right to remove the copyright violation, the people ganging up on him and reverting him were wrong. This entry has done everything to avoid explaining this, even implying that blame belonged the other way around. I'm happier with Jayjg's suggestion.--Duk 18:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted twice -- that's not usually how I work (I'm a bit revert-trigger-happy today courtesy of another user...). I have looked at it, and it seems to be a fact that he was blocked for violating the 3RR (copyvio or not). I don't really mind how much detail we include, but I don't think we should have things like "and the three editors who ganged up on him were mis-informed and wrong to revert and block him" in the page, that's all. Even if we could all agree on what actions were right and wrong (which we can't), it isn't really appropriate to dwell on it here. — Matt Crypto 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA U ALL R L0S3R n00bZ EDIT-WARRING OVER TEH MOST POINTLESS TIHNG EVAR BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

heh- you're right :) --Duk 18:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly a WP:LAME candidate.  Grue  21:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected to the proposed text above, I'll plan on unprotecting the page and updating tomorrow.--Duk 14:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, according to the talk page on that article, weren't those "copyright violations" actually text that the contributor had simply taken from his own site? Even if not, I object to that wording, because this isn't a court and I don't think we need to be pointing fingers at anyone on this page. Sarge Baldy 02:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, the text was not from the editor's own site. Coolcat claimed to be the original author, and that people were copying his work, but offered no proof, explaining that he wished to remain anonymous. All parties eventually agreed not to use the text in question, after discussions on WP:CP. But Coolcat continued to reinsert the copied text (by accident I believe) along with his re-written version, resulting in RickK's revert. --Duk 04:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Respect, deference

Wikipedia does not exist that long, but how does wikipedia deal with deceased wikipedians? Give them a sentence (standardized headstone) on the user page, create a category "Deceased wikipedians", create a site similar to "Missing Wikipedians" (virtual cemetery)? Just thinking.... -- 21:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing if someone has died, in practice. Almost all wikipedians don't know another wikipedian in meatspace, and when a wikipedian dies their password dies with them, I guess. I suppose someone's relative could come on (assuming they knew the deceased persons password) and announce their passing, but I know of no case where that has happened. Perhaps old wikipedians never die, they just go on indefinite wikibreak. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I should at that it's probable that several regular wikipedians have died (purely on statistical grounds). Also (another thing I should have mentioned above) is that only maybe 5% of wikipedians use or disclose their full name and physical location - so we couldn't search death records even if we wanted to. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. Disease and accidents aside, a quick gander at m:Wikipedians by age shows that very, very few people on Wikipedia are elderly. One user, User:CoppBob, is our oldest and gave us a bit of a scare by disappearing for a few months (he returned earlier this month), but other than that few wikipedians would qualify as old. →Raul654 00:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well you certainly don't need someone's password to let everyone know they have died?!?!? You just have to press the edit button on their user/user talk pages. Given the extreme rareness of old people over 70 (many of whom are far from past it let alone at death's door) contributing regularly I imagine deaths are extremely rare and may not even have occurred, at least to any of our regular contributors. There are increasing issues about death and one's digital possessions (if one's family don't know one's password it may not even be possible to access one's computer). The real solution is to leave instructions in one's will or with one's family to ensure that wikipedia is informed in the same way as a real world/meatspace project of one's untimely death. I hope these matters become routine long before I die (assuming I don't become singularised) but death is a great unknown and none of us can guarantee to be alive in 60 seconds time, SqueakBox 14:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

user John Fader

Anyone know the whereabouts of user:John Fader? He's been abruptly missing since May after several consecutive months of ~1000 extremely reasonable edits/month. His account has email turned off (or no registered address). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Xiong has left (presumably)

Xiong has put up a goodbye message and presumably left in the aftermath of several heated discussions. The talk page as it existed is at: [3]. Xiong had set up an email address; if it has not been reset it can be reached at Special:Emailuser/Xiong -- one could also try xiong@mochamail.com. Vacuum c 22:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait before adding a user (re: User:Aranda56)

I removed him from the list because his "last edit" was yesterday. Let's wait a few weeks before adding him, and hopefully he isn't gone. --Idont Havaname 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

(He has since stated on his user page that he's on a wikibreak and will be making fewer edits than usual. So it was definitely premature to add him.) --Idont Havaname 02:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

these people seem missing

• User:Greaterlondoner
• User:Louis23rd
• User:Edward
• User:iwishpeoplewerenicer
• User:Shadez
• User:Realshadez

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwishpeoplewerenicer (talk • contribs)

Note: This message was the first edit by User:Iwishpeoplewerenicer. User:Realshadez has six edits. User:Shadez has 15 edits, mainly to user space. User:Louis23rd has 18 edits. User:Edward has a pretty high edit count (from checking his contributions just now, at least 1000), but he last edited two days ago, so he shouldn't be included. User:Greaterlondoner has several hundred edits, but as the top of this page indicates, he'd probably need at least a thousand to be included here. We've had a lot of people leave the project, much more than we can list here, so there needed to be some boundary edit count to decide who to include. 1000 edits is a criterion a lot of editors have used for voting on requests for adminship (see also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards), and most people with 1000 or more edits have been here for several months, so that's probably why the criterion was picked. --Idont Havaname 22:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey

I think this user is notorious enough to be included on the list, and the 75 were only a small proportion of the actual edits she did. She edited one theme, not one article, and has an article as Constance Cumbey, SqueakBox 19:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

High Hopes

2 edits makes a wikip[edian. I don't think so and assume it was some trollish attempt to say wikipedia sucks, hence removed, SqueakBox 14:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)