Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Admins who do not always use admin template on this page?

There are plenty of users listed here who were admins but whose username templates here are not the admin variety. May I ask why that is? LazyBastardGuy 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@LazyBastardGuy, I can only speculate: there seems to be no standard way to identify former admins (I think?) since the count tool only separates admins from non-admins, which makes this a trial and error proposition. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Note that you can use Special:Log or Special:UserRights to determine if a user once had admin rights. -- Ϫ 03:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I say this because there are users listed here who are clearly identified as former admins, yet these items do not use the admin username templates. Oh well. LazyBastardGuy 01:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have elaborated: what I meant by trial and error is that some former admins mention it on their user page but some do not, some admins do deletions/blocks/etc but some do not. If all fails one can always delve into old talk pages... In other words it takes a lot of time to check all the possibilities, and if we insist that everyone does this before adding an entry we will discourage editors from participating in building up this list.
Having said this there is nothing stopping anyone from correcting existing entries - there may even be editors who like doing this sort of thing? XOttawahitech (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
One could always check through Wikipedia:Former administrators. I don't hink fixing this is that high a priority, but if somebody wants to do it, go ahead. Graham87 04:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
All I wanted to know was whether this page adhered to a uniform standard that was enforced with any amount of strength. If it doesn't, that's fine. I asked because I added a former admin who was desysopped only for not being active as a user, and was not sure as to whether this template was what I should have used. Subsequent edits corrected my mistake (I had not used it). That's all I was asking. Thank you. I'm done here. In future I will use it for any and all missing users who are or ever were admins if I can substantiate. I mainly asked out of curiosity. I don't care either way, just wanted to know. That said, I might do it if I find I have sufficient time on my hands, just because I'm always looking for something to do. Take care. LazyBastardGuy 04:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Junglejill

Seems[1] to have disappeared. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

She seems to have made less than 800 edits and contributed for a shade under two weeks with her account. I'm not sure if she should be listed here for that reason. Graham87 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok, she seemed quite established back when I interacted with her. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jorgenev

When you encounter a missing Wikipedian who seems very well established, what should you do about them (other than adding them to the list)? This one is Jorgenev (talk · contribs) Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 15:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing someone from the list

I sometimes see a Missing Wikipedians making a one-time edit here and there. Henrik is a good example of someone who is sorely missed by many, who apparently still keeps an eye on things and returns infrequently to put out fires, but has really left Wikipedia for all intents and purposes. As long as they have been notified on their talkpage about their inclusion in the list, I prefer to let them remove themselves if they are active again. Any other views? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Other than expressing a desire to have this dippy page of self-indulgent navel-gazing nuked from high orbit, no, not really. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Fffffeeeeelllllllllliiiiinnnnnggggg a little tetchy today, Tarc? 31.109.249.167 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
@Tarc: OK - I will bite: what is so "dippy" about wp:MW? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well ... one of the bullet points at the start of the page says "In most cases, editors who have gradually adopted a pattern of occasional editing interspersed with long breaks should not be listed merely because they are on one of their long breaks." I'd lean towards not including these people because they're not "missing" in the sense that we know where they are, and can contact them if need be. Graham87 07:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Graham, if someone hasn't edited since last spring, I'm not sure if we "know where they are, and can contact them if need be". Not every Editor posts their email on their User Page and we can't expect those who do to respond to messages coming from Wikipedia.
I think what the bullet point refers to is, if an Editor edited from 2006-mid-2007 and then again from 2010 to 2012. It doesn't happen often but I've noticed it in about a dozen profiles I've looked at. Since that user took one long break for a few years and then returned, he or she could just be on another break. But I think if a user last edited in March 2013, returns and makes one edit in September and then disappears again, that still qualifies as "Missing".
As for criticism of this article, navel-gazing usually refers to being self-absorbed in ones own problems. I think this page is the opposite, it's taking note of Editors who have made a contribution but then left or retired. I've found it useful to refer to when I'm looking at the Contributions of a formerly active Editor and I wonder what happened to them. Not everyone has been around Wikipedia for 5 or more years and knows the backstories of different Editors' departures. Except for major controversies with a few users like Essjay, this is the only article that notes what happened to Editors who made significant contributions. It's part of Wikipedia's history. Liz Read! Talk! 14:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Going on what Liz said, this page is in many ways the opposite of "dippy self-indulgent navel-gazing [that should be] nuked from high orbit", as Tarc so eloquently put it. We even have a rule in place that prohibits it being such: that you can't add yourself as one of your last edits; in fact, since one has no control over the epitaph that gets put here for them, this is the last place on Wikipedia that could be construed as... well, whatever Tarc said. I don't feel like repeating it. LazyBastardGuy 21:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
@Liz: Yes, :::I also read that point as applying to users like Henrik (and other editors like him who come by every now and then when their specialist knowledge is required). There as in-touch with the Wikipedia community as they want to be (whether through their talk page, email, IRC, or other means). I can only think of a handful of users like this, but they do exist. I actually tried (perhaps half-heartedly) to set up a similar arrangement once, but I just couldn't keep myself away from Wikipedia.
Graham87 15:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The only problem with this, Graham, is that this depends on individual's (in this case, your) knowledge of the other Editor's real-life situation. It's great that you have connections with other Editors so you can know their circumstances and so can edit Missing Wikipedians appropriately. But maybe you could include a brief note about this on their listing here (that is if their name is not taken off the list). Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know these particular editors personally; I just know these things because I often read the technical village pump. I'll edit the list accordingly. Graham87 04:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How many Missing Wikipeians are on our list?

Is anyone counting how many editors have been added to the list? Is there an easy way of finding out? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My screen reader JAWS notes how many items are in each bulleted list (another reason for my previous gripes about accessibility problems with this page ... which were the exact reason I began watchlisting it in the first place!) I've just added up all of the numbers of list items (while fixing a list along the way) , and I came up with a total of 871 users listed on the page. Graham87 01:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to list a missing editor -

Please kindly unprotect this page. --Thom Fullery (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you make seven more edits anywhere including the sandbox, you will be autoconfirmed and able to edit this page. Graham87 03:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

IFCAR

Hi. I've noticed something that I don't think anyone else has noticed; it's been almost a year since IFCAR, the user known for uploading a bunch of car photos (any car with a blurred Maryland or DC plate is basically his image, but there are many more), and he hasn't edited mainspace actively since November 2012 (he made a minor edit on a non-car related page in March). Within the past year, there haven't been NA spec photos of new vehicles (Kia Cadenza, Toyota RAV4, and others). So, since his disappearance is pretty major, should he be listed as disappeared? Thanks. Atum World There's an Acadia for that too! 02:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  • @Atum World: thanks for bringing user: IFCAR to out attention. I see user:Graham87 added an entry to MW. As suggested it may be a good idea to leave a message on IFCAR’s talkpage to let them know they are missed. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Oops, I was going to leave a reply to this message as well but forgot about it. Thanks, Ottawahitech. Graham87 04:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It's true -- my real-life life got more exciting, and I decided to drop off the Wikipedia Earth. I have still been taking photos of certain cars for work, so maybe I'll try to get back into the habit of uploading those that come out especially well or that might be of particular value. I do indeed have pictures of the Cadenza and RAV4.
      • And my goodness, when did asterisks replace colons for indenting on talk pages? IFCAR (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about Admin listings

I have a question for Ottawahitech and Graham who are more experienced here than I. Should an Editor be given a mop if they were once an Admin but weren't when they quit editing WP?
Here's an example: User joins in 2005, is an Admin from 2006-2008, quits WP in 2010 (this is by their own account). No information about whether a) they were desysop'd by ARBCOM, b) they requested to be desysop'd or c) they simply stopped doing Admin responsibilities, they stopped acting as an Admin.
In this example, the Editor was not an Admin longer than they were an Admin. So, should their name be marked with a mop because they were once an Admin or not because they were not an Admin when they left?
I should add that I have no stake in this, I just want to know if there is a guideline that decides this that I should be aware of. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I've been told, we add mop icons and use the admin version of the username template for users that have ever been admins. I was told this when I added someone who'd been desysopped during their absence from which they've yet to return. So if it were me I would put it like that. I think it's that way so their administrative actions can also be perused, which may be part of what made them so valuable to Wikipedia (which is why we commemorate them with this list). LazyBastardGuy 23:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct. Graham87 04:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have not had time to research this, but isn’t there another template: former admin? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall ever seeing this used, do you suppose we should? LazyBastardGuy 19:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Belated thanks for the guidance. Much appreciated! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Suppressions?

...and three of them in a row (including one of my edits) - I wonder what this was all about? Anyway this seems like the right opportunity to talk about some other unusual things I come across as a result of editing wp:mw.

For example, earlier I was notifying some editors that they have been recently added to mw and after posting on one user talkpage I saw this earlier edit. Now, it has been my experience when contacting Missing Wikipedians that many have deletion notices posted on their talkpage, but this one was unusual. Firstly it was a redirect deletion, second there were quite a few similar notices, third they were all from the samee nominator, fourth they seemed like real weird redirects. But, unfortunately, like most deleted stuff on wiki I guess I will never find out why this missing wikipedian did all this work that has now joined many others in the dustbin. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The earliest suppressed edit revealed some personal information – I can't remember it's nature and that's none of our business anyway – but it was obviously grievous enough that it had to be suppressed. The next two edits also would have needed suppression because they would have revealed the offending information in the first edit. Re: your second point: Deletion is as much a part of improving a wiki as addition. Both of these activities should be undertaken carefully. Graham87 14:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Vanished Wikipedians

Should we be adding WP:RTV accounts? Since it kinda defeats the purpose of them wanting to be vanished. -- Ϫ 20:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I'd lean towards their removal per your reasoning. Graham87 05:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This is one area (of many) on wikipedia that I know almost nothing about. I vaguely remember another discussion (I think right here – or on one of this page's deletion discussions) where the topic of vanished users was mentioned. I just did a search on wp:MISS and found a few more vanished missing ones (I think). So whatever the decision is – it should be universal. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
...and there is also User:Vanished user who has been blocked? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Another puzzle

The admin I just added, Ssd, shows 5,040 edits in the official count, but when his RFA took place in 2004 the nominator said he had 6,200 edits at that time. So how can this admin have less edits now than he did in 2004? Just curious. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The only rational reason for that discrepancy is a major typo in the nomination statement. According to the version of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits based on the 8 August 2004 database, Ssd had 3,197 edits at that time. Graham87 14:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that tool is counting deleted edits? I can see that user has hundreds of deleted edits, mostly categories, this could account for the discrepancy. -- Ϫ 02:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Nope, it doesn't, but the user has only 923 deleted edits at time of writing, most of which seem to have been live back in August 2004 (admin-only link; I used JAWS to help me figure out that number). Their RFA occurred after the last purge of the deletion archive, which rules out the problem of missing deleted edits. Graham87 05:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters may be of interest.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Does your deleted edit count include edits from purged discussions and talk pages of deleted and purged pages? --ssd (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a purged page, but it includes all deleted edits in all namespaces. The only thing it doesn't include is redirects with one edit in their history that have later been moved over, but that couldn't possibly explain a discrepancy as large as the one we're discussing. By the way I've removed you from the main page because you've recently made a few edits. Graham87 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I did a lot of editing of broken redirects for a while, so it is entirely possible that is where the discrepancy is coming from. Also, looking at my contributions, it appears my top 20 or so edits are the last edit on a page, going back 6 months at least. Can this qualify as still active even if the last edit is 3+ months old?  :) --ssd (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Editing broken redirects wouldn't have done it, but creating redirects which were later moved over would have caused edits to be nuked, though as I've said, that probably didn't happen in this case. Let me put it like this: you had 1,817 edits on 1 July 2004 and 3,197 edits on 8 August of that year (bneither of which count deleted edits). If you did in fact have 6,200 edits on 17 July 2004 (the day of your RFA nomination), you would have had to create 3,000 redirects between the 1st and 17th of July, all of which would have been moved over by 8 August of that year. That's the only possible way this discrepancy could have occurred besides a simple typo in the nomination statement; the latter is therefore infinitely more likely.
Yes, I think you're active enough not to be listed on the missing Wikipedians list; we all know where you are now, at any rate. Graham87 08:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
@Wavelength:Thanks, again, for the great link. I am looking for a wp:barnstar for you, but cannot find one that suits the occasion, one that conveys not only my admiration for your ability to find links that provide historical perspective, but also your willingness to share them with the community-at-large. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing ;) -- œ™ 15:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Another puzzle with the same editor

When I added user:ssd to the list of missing wikipedians the View History says I added 72 characters. However later on a smaller number of characters were deleted when the entry was removed. Just curious (again :-) XOttawahitech (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Because I moved the instance of {{-}}. Graham87 06:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Definite word on blocked editors

I was going to add a blocked editor who had over 130,000 edits and I read through the guidelines and it says nothing about whether to or not to add editors who have been blocked or banned. I see there has been some discussion about it (above).

But what was the consensus? I'll check back on this but if it doesn't receive some comment, I'll assume it's okay to add them to the page unless the guidelines say otherwise.

I get the feeling that not including them is meant to be some sort of shame or show of disapproval. But we have to remember what purpose this list serves. I know that I refer to it when I see an editor who looks like they were valuable and productive and I wonder what happened to them. Whether they were retired, disappeared or were blocked is all useful information. I don't think it is some honor to be included, it's only a sign that a Wikipedian had had a memorable impact on WP and many editors who ended up blocked made thousands of worthwhile edits before they acted out or did something blockworthy. It is completely appropriate to note on their listing here that they were blocked or banned. The list just serves the purpose of answering the question, "Whatever happened to X?" and I think we should have a NPOV about including notable Wikipedians regardless of whether they left under a cloud. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, we do have blocked editors on the list. Vanished editors are discussed in one of the threads above.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that this article is meant to track Wikipedians who simply left the project, versus those that were kicked out. Blocked editors aren't missing. We do have some blocked accounts on the list because those accounts were later compromised or the departing editors requested to have their accounts blocked to prevent same.
While I appreciate the concept of remembering notable Wikipedians that got the axe from ArbCom, I'd like to keep focus on the pattern of those that voluntarily leave, especially those that formally retire. Besides that, I don't want to see this page get bogged down with the wordsmithing and POV-pushing about those editors that were run out of Wikipedia because of misconduct. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reasons editors leave Wikipedia

I don’t know if others are as fascinated with this topic as I am, and I am not sure this is the proper place to discuss it. However, it is very hard to ignore (anecdotal?/statistical?) information I come across as a result of working on this page, and especially the requirement to notify people I add to the list. I wonder if it is OK to at least exchange some views on this matter? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A better place for this discussion that might elicit more responses would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention. Graham87 02:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have tried this route before. Did not work for me unfortunately. WP: wer (like many other wiki-projects) is "controlled" by those who founded it. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I started a lil project a while ago dealing with this topic, but got preoccupied with other things. Another subpage collecting dust, sigh.. maybe you can adopt it, if you'd like. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform/Attrition/Study/Reasons for leaving. -- Ϫ 09:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@OlEnglish: Thanks for the suggestions. I guess what I was looking for (without having any idea of how to accomplish it) is something more comprehensive than what missing editors choose, or are able, to articulate. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We know, we know. We still don't have deleted edits...

I thought the message below, which I have been encountering for some time now whenever I click the count link, was a temporary glitch like the some others I have mentioned at wp:helpdesk, but is it?

<h2 class="alert">We know, we know. We still don't have deleted edits. Try annoying [[user:Coren|Coren]] to tears and pressure labs into speeding up the process if you want to see it happen since toolserver is shutting down on 1/6/14.</h2>

XOttawahitech (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully ... well, it will definitely have changed by 1 June 2014. :-) Graham87 06:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the counter of deleted edits is finally back. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with alternative accounts

I propose a new page, Wikipedia:Wikipedians with alternative accounts (see Category:Wikipedians with alternative accounts), as a reference page to facilitate management of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians and Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC) and 19:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the category is adequate; any further monitoring seems rather ... stalkerish to me. Graham87 10:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for considering my proposal.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@Wavelength: I am intrigued by your idea. I do not understand the policy in regards to having more than one user name on Wikipedia, and do not not how to find editors with alternative names. Would you (or someone else) care to elaborate? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: You can find the policy about having more than one username at Wikipedia:Username policy#Using multiple accounts (WP:MULTIPLE). You can find editors with alternative usernames at Category:Wikipedians with alternative accounts. (I am restoring the heading level of this discussion, because I started this discussion as being parallel to "#Wikipedia:Renamed Wikipedians", and not as a subset of it.)
—Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Purplefeltangel

Seems to have come back as User:Lesath (last edit April 2013). Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've added that info to the main page. Graham87 07:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose simple split

Just halfway through the page, so we can have "Missing Wikipedians A-M" and then "Missing Wikipedians N-Z" or something like that. This isn't like I was proposing before: I'm only suggesting this because this page is very nearly 130 KB long, and any time I make an edit to it it takes much longer than other pages I've edited to load back up again. It's probably a lot harder on other users with less-advanced browsers and/or operating systems who wish to contribute, and evidently the trend is that this page experiences a net positive gain of users listed (i.e. more often than not, a user who is listed does not return), which means the page is only going to grow larger and these problems are only going to get more severe. Splitting the page might also make it easier to find certain editors or find places to list them. Any opinions? LazyBastardGuy 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the split, but a major reason that it takes so long to re-load after each edit is because of the page's heavy use of templates. See Wikipedia:Template limits and note that as it says in the HTML source (search for "NewPP limit report"), the post-expand include size of this page is nearly half of the limit. Graham87 01:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I have seen that now. Should we wait until it's somewhat bigger? LazyBastardGuy 16:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, probably a good idea. Graham87 05:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the editing problem is. Each section ("A", "B", "C", etc.) has its own Edit link so you don't need to edit the entire page, just the section where their username falls. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was referring to. Even editing on a section-by-section basis seems unreasonably slow. LazyBastardGuy 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It would solve the "too many templates" issue, but I'm not sure if it would improve the speed of loading very much. It would definitely make the code in the edit window far more ugly though. Graham87 06:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This list is incomplete

I know it goes without saying, but this list is far from being complete. Does anyone try to compile many of the people who's names still have yet to be added yet? User:White Shadows is a good example. He's been gone since 2012 and worked a lot on Battleships and U-Boats yet remains off this list. That's just one example...there's probably hundreds who remain off the list. --134.126.216.201 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to add them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@Casliber: looks like only wp:autoconfirmed users are allowed to edit wp:MISS. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, have unprotected it and we'll see what happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

H

I have discovered a user known simply as H, who apparently left Wikipedia in 2007 as a result of another editor (I have no idea who) threatening his family. I don't know much about the circumstances, should I add him? Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 15:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have since found out who the user was. If we do add H, we should of course not mention the user who outed him per WP:DENY. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably best to avoid that one altogether.
I'm seeing the current trend towards this list being exhaustive within the already fairly wide scope, but I think maybe we should be a little less liberal with the people we add here and perhaps focus more on those editors who have made a somewhat more.. substantial? impact on the project.. i guess measured by what anecdotes can be written of them in their entry? Just a thought. -- Ϫ 09:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I always thought the page was meant to be for editors to add folks they actually had personally interacted with and then missed, rather than folks to come along later and fill in people they had never interacted with. FWIW, adding H probably not a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no real reason any human intervention is needed to update this page. A bot could easily update the list for editors who've not contributed in >3 months, excluding blocked users. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: If it is that easy to add a bot which updates a list of editors who've not contributed in >3 months, then why not have two lists:
It'll be the same list, as per the page guidelines for this one "Wait at least 3 months before listing someone..." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Lugnuts on this. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about this page on Jimbo's talk page

Please see this discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the missing Wikipedians page. Graham87 12:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting,Graham. Must say this gave me a jolt. MW is(was?) a rare place on wiki where I like(d?) to participate when things got choppy elsewhere. Up to now, all I got on my talkpage were comments from editors who were happy with this work. And of course some editors do come back when they see their absence has been noticed, or at least I would like to think so. Anyway, this is something to mull about, for sure. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't let it bother you, you're doing a fine job here, keep it up. I'm sure most former editors would be flattered to know that they've been missed. That user just seemed a little too self-absorbed in my opinion, and to reference the Streisand effect as if so many actually care about who he was here, sheesh. -- Ϫ 06:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Missing Wikipedians

This cat was recently created to contain all transclusions of Template:Not around. Is everyone OK with this? Anyone think this may be undermining or at least needlessly duplicating this list? Note the 'What links here' links in the See also section which list other templates such as {{retired}} and {{User EX-WP}} that should also be transcluding this category if it is to be comprehensive. -- Ϫ 12:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, a category does not needlessly duplicate a corresponding list.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
That's true in mainspace yes, but in projectspace we can afford to be a little more flexible with our standards. Especially considering recent discussion about this list being "incomplete" and such, we should decide which of the two we would want to be the 'complete' and exhaustive one. -- Ϫ 11:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@OlEnglish: Thanks for finding and posting Category:Missing Wikipedians. If(?) we want it to replace wp:miss someone will have to populate it since it currently contains only 721 entries. Any ideas on how we can go about it? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The list here is a maintenance headache, the criteria for inclusion aren't clear, and there are apparently OWNership issues. Conversely Category:Missing Wikipedians can simply be added to user pages (or transcluded, as in the case of {{Not around}}). If a (former) user doesn't want to be included, they simply amend page(s) in their user space, leaving an appropriate edit summary. (We should assume good faith in the case of IP edits.) This removes the need to trawl through the history of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to see when a former user was added/removed. Any former user who wishes to vanish can follow that procedure and/or have their user page deleted and talk page blanked. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Trevj: Please : What is not clear in the criteria for inclusion? What ownership issues are you talking about? I was a newbie here not too long ago and your comments caught me by surprise. I never felt unwelcome, and the inclusion criteria, even though I disagree with sometimes, seem clear to me. Would you help us improve this page? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Trevj: First, I've been contributing to this list and the inclusion criteria seem very clear to me. Secondly, that nonsense discussion on Jimbo's talk does not make the case that there are ownership issues here. If some user wants to vanish I'd be willing to discuss how to handle that, but all contributions to the wiki belong to the community. No one has the right to not have their edit history scrutinized.
Furthermore, this list serves as an anecdotal history of substantial contributors walking away from the project. It's received media attention. The headache of maintenance isn't yours so why are you constructing an argument around it? A category is just a category. A list allows us to document when a Wikipedian left and whether that Wikipedian had been an admin. There's value added in the list that a category does not have. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know too much about the history of this list. My comments were prompted by the above comment "we should decide which of the two we would want to be the 'complete' and exhaustive one." I can see benefits in the category (easier removal by retired editors, easier inclusion by others), so wanted to make this clear. I'm not proposing that the list here shouldn't be kept, but intended to point out that the category isn't necessarily superfluous. There's probably room for both, if people are OK with that, and I can see that the list can have benefits not offered by a category. As for improving the list page, I've other things I expect to be doing for the foreseeable future. I hope that these comments are helpful. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion about "retired" editors who are not really retired at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Mythical_retirement. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Error fixed promptly

It seems I removed an entry while adding one -- I cannot figure out how this happened, but thanks to the watchful eye of user:Graham87 the error was rectiied in no time at all.

This seems like a good time to thank Graham87 forl the work he does here. This list would not exist without him. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but you're too kind! :-) I think this list would be very much poorer without the diligent efforts of you and other users to track down missing Wikipedians. For the record, all you did was remove a period/full stop; you didn't remove the whole entry. Graham87 04:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by user and count not working for me today

Edits by user and count not working for me today - anyone else? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's back again: but see the notice on the page: "Due to constant outages, xtools will be undergoing an overhaul sometime in the future." Graham87 07:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Ye they are back for me too, but today I cannot use Contributors (I get Bad Gateway on and off). Sorry to post this here, I don't know where else. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's been happening lately as well, both on WMF Labs and on Wikipedia itself. A better place to report problems like this is the technical village pump. Graham87 05:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to let others know I posted this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Internal_Server_Error. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot use count again today, as a matter of fact I could not use it at all since last Friday. It has not been working consistently since I reported it here on 9 February 2014 and it seems that my report at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Internal_Server_Error went unheeded. Is there a place on wiki for filing trouble reports? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really; WMF labs is pretty flakey at the moment. Graham87 08:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Scope of entries

Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians apparently does not specify whether or not other Wikimedia projects should be counted, or whether or not other languages should be counted. Something definitive might be added to the introduction. We can use this tool to check the global contributions of an editor who seems to have retired, but whose activity may be concentrated elsewhere among Wikimedia wikis.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by other Wikimedia projects is a useful category.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO contribution to other projects should be taken into consideration. All the project are combined to a big network of data, media etc. etc. If someone contribute mainly to one Wikipedia, It doe's not mean that he is a "Missing Wikipedian". Every Wikipedia is a version of the same projects. Broccolo (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I would agree, actually. I mean, someone's "missing" if they're not here and we have no idea what they're up to or what happened to them (even if they retire and tell us why). If someone's still active on some other Wikimedia project (and has clearly indicated they are the same person for both accounts) then that doesn't mean they're "missing", it just means they're busy someplace else. Admittedly, that does mean I am guilty of adding a few people to this list that may or may not have been active on other projects and I just don't know. (I feel pretty confident about at least a few of them, though.) LazyBastardGuy 03:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to play devil’s advocate, I am not so sure I agree with the what the consensus here seems to be so far. I am not sure that an individual who was very active on the English Wikipedia but decided to start contributing to another Wikimedia project is not a loss to us here. It could very well be a result of something specific that drove them away? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
From my point of view, this list is of people who contributed significantly to the well-being of Wikipedia and without whom Wikipedia would not be where it is today. However, it appears the list only counts the English Wikipedia, which is problematic on two counts: 1) there are dozens of languages in which Wikipedia is published, and 2) there are dozens of other Wikimedia projects, of which there are still many more languages.
When we say these people are "missing", I understand that to mean we don't know where they are, which is the common interpretation associated with real-life missing persons reports (even if they have explicitly retired for one reason or another - all that tells is us when they left and why, not what they're doing afterwards). If they are active on some other Wikimedia project or even another language edition of Wikipedia itself, does that mean they're "missing"? If we know where they are, and they have only ceased activity on the English Wikipedia, do we include them here or perhaps start another list with people who basically migrated from one project to the next? To lump individuals whose whereabouts are known with those whose whereabouts are not is a bit of an insult, devaluing their contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. I'm personally in favor of a split. LazyBastardGuy 19:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
To me, "missed" sounds better - meaning there is someone who misses them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts on the matter is that this is "Missing WikiPEDIANS" not WikiMEDIANS so other Wikimedia projects shouldn't apply, otherwise this list should be on Meta. Same goes for other languages, each language should have their own 'missing' list. This page being on the English Wikipedia should only list users missing from 'this' Wikipedia, and renaming this list to something like Wikipedia:Missing English Wikipedians could be confusing. -- Ϫ 04:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I think a good solution would be this: Keep only English Wikipedians on this list, but only add them in the first place if and only if they are not presently active on any other Wikimedia project. That way we can retain the more-manageable scope of this page and we don't ignore whatever else they've contributed to the Wikimedia Foundation. LazyBastardGuy 04:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with LazyBastardGuy. They are not missing if they are active on another project, because we know what they are doing. — JJJ (say hello) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Limiting it to this scope sounds wise. Feel free to update the "Purpose of this list" section to reflect this. -- Ϫ 05:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
How's this sound? "Do not add someone without being certain that they did not merely leave the English Wikipedia for some other Wikimedia project, including another language-edition of Wikipedia, and do not add Wikipedians who never substantially contributed to the English Wikipedia." I'd put it right after "...and do not add yourself." I would have done this already except this is going to require a check of every name on the list to make sure they didn't just leave the English WP for some other project. (I just added a name myself before seeing this post.) LazyBastardGuy 22:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm rewriting and somewhat simplifying the language of the intro. As a test, I checked the entries in the "Numbers and other characters" section and as of this writing all entries are complicit with how I've currently written it. I wanted to run this by you guys first, because this is just a proposal and I want some feedback here. The only new thing I've added is what the consensus of this section seems to be at this point, and I've made a big change overall, which is why I'm very hesitant to make this change myself. Here is the new intro I've written:

The purpose of this list is to provide a reminder to us of key contributors who have left and their reasons for doing so.

However, this list is only for Wikipedians who once edited on the English Wikipedia but who do not edit at all on any Wikimedia project any longer, including other language editions. If you want to add someone to this list, please follow this procedure:

Access this tool and enter the username in question. Verify that one of the following is true:

  • They have not edited any Wikimedia project in the last 90 days (in other words, since {{template of the current date & time minus 90 days}} as of today); you may add them sooner if and only if you are absolutely certain they left for good and can explain why.
  • They left some form of notice that they would retire (e.g. a retirement notice on their userpage, an announcement of permanent departure, etc.) and have not edited any Wikimedia project within the last 3 weeks (in other words, since {{template of the current date & time minus 21 days}} as of today). In such a case, a retired Wikipedian is likely to have left permanently.

The user is only eligible to be added if one of the above two conditions is met and if all of the following are true:

  • They were not known only by anonymous IP addresses (they could have created an account and still be contributing, or they might have a roaming IP address)
  • They had at least ~1,000 edits on the English Wikipedia (use this tool to check), even if this is spread across different usernames (in such a case add only the last one used and make sure to list others the person used in the entry itself; do not add IP addresses)
  • They are not currently blocked or banned, even if they were the last time they were seen (as in they could come back now if they wanted to)
  • They have not simply changed user accounts and are still active on a new one (this can be harder to verify as a user does not always list names they previously edited under but retired later)
  • They are not yourself (you cannot add yourself to this list because it is theoretically impossible for a "missing" Wikipedian to do so; it will be reverted)

If a user has made a habit of going on long breaks without editing, please refrain from adding them to the list until it can be reasonably said they have ceased activity.

Always leave a notice on the user's talk page to inform them that you have put their name here, so if they come back they can remove their name (they may even remove their name during their inactivity and request that it be kept off the list if they feel it is necessary). If someone has returned and not removed their name, please do so for them.

This page was mentioned in an Economist article on March 6, 2008: "Many who are excited about contributing to the site end up on the “Missing Wikipedians” page: a constantly updated list of those who have decided to stop contributing. It serves as a reminder that frustration at having work removed prompts many people to abandon the project."

The entries with the mop icon beside their name are Wikipedia administrators, or have been at one time.

All dates featured on this page correspond with UTC times.

How's that? LazyBastardGuy 19:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

My initial reaction (have not had time to read it carefully) is that this is VERY complicated. In my opinion it is hard enough to get more editors contributing to this list, so I do not believe that anything that makes it harder is a good thing to do. What are the issues you are trying to address? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's why I put it here for discussion. We're trying to weed-out the entries that don't belong; consensus so far seems to be that only those who had a substantial impact on the English WP and left Wikimedia altogether should be listed here (someone who simply migrated from this wiki to another by Wikimedia is not "missing" in the usual sense of the term). I've just taken some of the stuff on the page already and reorganized it to the best of my ability. It seems kind of chaotic, the way it's written now, so I feel a list form like this would be better. I hope this will be a better litmus test for potential candidates for this list; I hope it will make anyone who wants to contribute think critically about what they hope to add. If I may ask, what about this makes it intimidating? Perhaps there is something I can remove or reword? I did make a change to it just now, hopefully that sounds better. LazyBastardGuy 23:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I got rid of something else - the bit about Deceased Wikipedians. "Missing" implies we don't know if they're alive or dead either, as grim as that thought may be, and it's not as if anyone who adds to this list is going to have access to that either. LazyBastardGuy 23:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I also got rid of the bit about taking long breaks (actually, I replaced it with something better). LazyBastardGuy 02:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Take two

Let's take another shot at this. I've gutted much of the confusing material in my earlier proposal so hopefully this is easier to read.

The purpose of this list is to provide a reminder to us of key contributors who have left and their reasons for doing so.

However, this list is only for Wikipedians who once edited on the English Wikipedia but who do not edit at all on any Wikimedia project any longer, including other language editions. If you want to add someone to this list, please follow this procedure:

First, check the user’s Global Contributions. Verify that either:

  • the user has not edited any Wikimedia project in at least 90 days, or
  • the user explicitly retired from at least one Wikimedia project and has not edited on any of them for at least three weeks, which means they are likely to have left permanently.

If either of those things are true, check to verify all of the following:

  • They were not only known by IP addresses (they may have registered since then, have a roaming IP address or may share one with other users)
  • They made at least ~1,000 edits to the English Wikipedia, even if this is spread across different usernames (in such a case add only the one they most recently used and list the others they used in the entry itself; do not list IP addresses)
  • They are not currently blocked or banned, even if they were the last time they were seen (as in they could come back now if they wanted; this does not apply for accounts that were compromised and then blocked after they ceased activity)

*They have not simply changed accounts and been using another one since then (this can be harder to verify since users do not always list the names they previously edited under)

  • They have left no form of notice that they do not wish to be added to this list

If the user passes the test, you may add them. When writing their entry on this page, summarize their contributions to Wikipedia as best you can; if you cannot, the date of their last edit will suffice, but please do try for more than that.

Be sure you do not add yourself to this list; it’s not technically possible for a missing Wikipedian to do so and such edits will be reverted.

If the user appears to have made a habit of staying away for long periods of time, please do not add them to the list until they have stayed away for longer than usual.

When you add someone, be sure to let them know on their talk page so they can remove their name from the list if/when they come back.

Note to those who have been listed: If you find you have been listed and do not wish to be, please remove yourself and use an edit summary to state you do not wish to be included on the list. This will go a long way towards ensuring that if other editors think about adding you to the list, they will see your request and respect it.

This page was mentioned in an Economist article on March 6, 2008: "Many who are excited about contributing to the site end up on the “Missing Wikipedians” page: a constantly updated list of those who have decided to stop contributing. It serves as a reminder that frustration at having work removed prompts many people to abandon the project."

The entries with the mop icon beside their name are Wikipedia administrators, or have been at one time.

All dates featured on this page correspond with UTC times.

Alright, is that better? LazyBastardGuy 21:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I do have a couple questions, though. First, "simply changed accounts" seems confusing. If someone had a clean start the first user page would redirect to their second user page. If someone just quit using one account and started on a second, that would be difficult to verify and opens the door to impersonation. Second, I've seen a few missing wikipedians' accounts that were compromised and subsequently blocked or themselves asked to have their accounts blocked. I would suggest only refusing those that were banned or blocked for cause. Otherwise, I think these guidelines work. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I've amended it based on your suggestions. Seeing as there's nothing currently on the project page about it, I've stricken-through the bit about "simply changing accounts". I think we should handle those on a case-by-case basis; if we find someone listed here is active on another account, we can simply remove the old name. LazyBastardGuy 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me too. The only thing I'd change is that I'd add the words "such edits" before the phrase "will be reverted". Graham87 02:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It shall be done! LazyBastardGuy 03:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You mean for now or ever? As far as I know, these issues will be resolved in time. There wasn't previously an issue with the ~1000 English WP edits requirement, so why now? LazyBastardGuy 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Since Labs was rewritten I haven't had any issues whatsoever. Do you still have issues with accessing it? If not, would that change your mind here? LazyBastardGuy 02:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@LazyBastardGuy: Aren't you ever the lucky one :-) XOttawahitech (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Being wary of who we add to the page

@Ottawahitech: has asked me to post something here that I posted to his talk page so other editors can see it. He has expressed his concern (on my talk page) that editors who contribute to this list may not be checking thoroughly to make sure the people they wish to add did not leave edit summaries or other forms of communication in which they say they do not want to be included on this list.

Generally I assume if people leave edit summaries or notes like that anywhere, it would turn up when I go looking to see what their last contributions were. I don't just check to see when they last contributed, but what specifically they did and where. If they posted a goodbye essay or something, I make sure to include that in my epitaph, but if there were also a note asking not to be included on the list (generally it may not be on their minds, however), I would respect that and not add them. However, they usually don't make any mention of it and most (if not all) of the Wikipedians I've added to the list generally disappear without a trace or any hint of a reason for doing so. Usually the others who both qualify for the list and say they're leaving for whatever reason are snatched-up by other editors who list them before I do; those that are left leave without warning and without protest of the list, at least for me to find. Cheers!
— User:LazyBastardGuy
— User talk:Ottawahitech [[Special:Diff/597513856|LazyBastardGuy 16:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)]]

Of the people I've added to this list, I've not yet seen one that specified they didn't want to be listed here. While I suppose it would be the polite thing to honor editors' wishes in those cases, I prefer those editors make their intentions clear rather than situations I've seen where an unnamed editor was removed from this list only after other editors agreed that person likely would not want to be listed. A bright line rule is what's needed. Otherwise I would tent to include all missing editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Create a userbox with a clear message like If or when I'm gone, don't add me to the Missing Wikipedians list. That, in my opinion, would not leave room for doubt. Lotje (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@LazyBastardGuy: What if you add X to the list and leave them your standard message assuring them that their edit summaries on wp:MISS will be carefully checked before anyone adds them again, and then some other editor adds them again without checking all edit summaries on wp:MISS. Do you always check the contributions of others to wp:MISS, and will you be able to correct it in time before we have a very irate editor X on our hands? XOttawahitech (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question here. Are you asking if people add the same user multiple times? I always use the Quick Find feature on my browser to make sure the one I hope to add isn't already listed. It seems as if you're asking the wrong question, though: I think you're trying to ask, "What if an editor who wishes to add X doesn't check X's contribution history first?" Checking the history of WP:MISS is not necessary because if X has edited WP:MISS, it'll show up in their contributions as their last (or at least among the most recent) edit(s). As far as that goes, however, we have no control over improper additions to the list unless a few of us designate ourselves to personally inspect further additions to the list, which I suppose isn't a tall order but it does give the impression that one doesn't have to check to make sure X is a suitable entry per the guidelines at the top of the page, 'cause someone else will come along and verify and clean up after them, so to speak.
However, whatever the case, I think I can answer the question you're trying to ask. If X removes xemself and leaves an edit summary accompanying the edit that specifies, in no uncertain terms, "Keep me off this list", then it'll be there when someone who wishes to add xem comes along and inspects that person's edit history. We cannot guarantee, however, that the edit history will be checked by this person; indeed, this has been the case since this list was created. That would be the case whether I left such a note or not.
So no, I can't guarantee that this rule would always be followed. But that has been the case since this list was created in the first place, and we seem to have done just fine since then. LazyBastardGuy 02:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Actually, that literally just happened to me, believe it or not. I fixed it after another user pointed it out to me (my most recent contribution to this list as of this writing has been removed because apparently that person has been added before and requested removal). Fortunately, I had only added that person like two days ago, and I left a notice on their talk page advising other users against adding them again. Short of that I'm not sure what else to do to make it clear this person doesn't want to be added because their request is so deep in their contributions history it's not likely to ever be found (they came back for a round of editing afterward and then left for good). LazyBastardGuy 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Foroa

Is Foroa missing, vanished or did he simply change his name? Should he be added to the missing wikipedians list? Foroa stopped editing July 27, 2012 on commons and then gradually stopped on the other wiki's. Emails sent remain unanswered and in the meantime, the email option has been removed from his userpage. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Other wikis", not "other wiki's". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. Technically, he doesn't yet qualify because his last edit was less than three months ago (at time of writing). But if he doesn't edit for a few more days, he will qualify for this list. Graham87 02:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
And ... he also doesn't qualify because he has far less than a thousand edits on the English Wikipedia. Graham87 02:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Lotje (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lotje, we have discussed including wikipedians with less than one thousand edits at: #Missing_Wikipedians_with_a_small_number_of_edits. Feel free to add your thoughts to that section if you feel strongly about it. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
@Lotje: I see you have added Foroa to mw. I personally do not have a problem with it, but would like to know what makes this editor special. Thanks. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot all about it, I'll undo my edit. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Level of detail

Hello, I am trying to seek for a clarification here for what the level of detail needed to depict the final edits of someone who chooses to leave the projectile, but it doesn't suit. I've made of an edit here about a Missing Wikipedian but it's been removed twice and so to now I am making a discussion on the talk page. It read "Final edits concerned rampage killers, glory holes, and the avalanches of pornography on Wiki Commons." which I think as any reader of the contribs of the user in question would doubt, and also consider to be a "flag in the old hat", as we used to say. This ultimately completes "a brief description of what they did (including edit count or length of service where relevant)," although the final wording of the issue is always open to the discuss of the committee. Thanks Horatio Snickers (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Horatio Snickers, I checked both List of rampage killers (Americas) ‎ and Glory hole (sexual slang) and i see that User:Delicious carbuncle was a minor contributor to these pages. Just wondering why you feel this user should be associated with theses pages? XOttawahitech (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

HectorMoffet

What's the official status on blocked editors? I wanted to remove HectorMoffet, because he did not "leave", he was just indefinitely blocked for insulting another member. Wasn't sure if this action would be controversial so I brought it here. Thanks, Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

First he left, then he was blocked, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked and/or banned users should not be on this list at all. Unless they get unblocked at some point they are no longer in good standing and are no longer part of the community, nor will they be "missed". Exceptions though, would be users such as User:Badger Drink who request to be blocked or admins who block themselves for whatever reason (don't know if that's even possible? but don't want to test this, hehe) -- Ϫ 17:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's possible. Graham87 08:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes I see Toddst1 (talk · contribs) has done it, haha!
I suppose username blocks done after they've already stopped editing can be excepted too btw. -- Ϫ 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Cameron & Lonewolf BC

Cameron's been missing since July 2013 & Lonewolf BC since 2009. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add them, then, with a short summary of their most important work for Wikipedia. Graham87 02:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Question About a Missing Wikipedia Member

I was told here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Question_About_a_Wikipedia_Member -- that I should also post this message of mine here; that said, here goes:

I normally don't ask these types of questions, but I think that I can make an exception for this. Hopefully I am posting this in the right place and hopefully such questions are okay to post here. Anyway:

Does anyone know what exactly happened to Wikipedia user Katie Ryan A? She hasn't posted at all on Wikipedia for the last 3.5 months despite being very active on Wikipedia before that point in time (see here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Katie_Ryan_A). I was previously engaged in a very long conversation with Katie on her talk page, but after she suddenly stopped posting on Wikipedia, I am unable to continue this conversation with her. I would think that normally, Wikipedia editors don't frequently edit and then suddenly stop editing unannounced; thus, I was wonder if anyone knows why exactly Katie Ryan A stopped posting on Wikipedia (if it is okay for him or her to share this information here, that is). I am concerned for Katie's well-being and seriously hope that Katie is currently doing okay/good and that nothing bad happened to her at the beginning of August 2014. After all, based on my interactions with her, I honestly think that Katie is a great, extremely friendly, and nice person. :) Futurist110 (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Futurist110: Unfortunately it does happen that a prolific editor just ... stops. (N.b. I've began editing as an IP in Sept. 2009, so over 5 years 'service'.) Wikipedia is not that different from 'real life' people, come and go. We are all born and there is the certainty that we all die. Sometimes illness, sometimes accidents take people. At least one editor I met here died from cancer. There are a few cases of accidents, like a well known editor Wadewitz who died after a fall while rock climbing. Unfortunately, I must suggest these as possibilities. An editor and Admin. who I considered a friend, TFOWR (talk · contribs) just ... stopped editing over 4 years ago. I have no idea why, nor has any real information about his sudden 'disappearance' come to light. He did post a message some months earlier on his talk page saying:
"I'm currently: overwhelmed with real-life issues. I'll be dropping by sporadically, real-life permitting."
So there was something going on. Thought he still seemed to be fairly active, until 5 November 2010 then, ... nothing.
Sometimes family are able to contact WP to let us know what happened. Unfortunately Katie Ryan A didn't have an E-mail address connected to WP. See also Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. --220 of Borg 16:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Renamed Wikipedians

I propose a new page, Wikipedia:Renamed Wikipedians, as a reference page to facilitate management of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians and Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC) and 19:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A page like that would be wide-open to issues with publicizing editors' real names and other personally identifying information. Not a good idea. Graham87 10:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for considering my proposal.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be slightly less wide-open if it only listed the current usernames of such users. But in general, I think it is not really a good idea, as when you ask for a rename, surely you want to be referred to by your new username on WP? One place I could see it being beneficial is if a discussion lasts for a very long time and username changes come in the middle: this might make it look like two people are commenting when there's really only 1. But I think this is better resolved by disclaimers of the sort "(X with a new username)", which I already do when I reply to an old discussion where I used one of my previous usernames. Double sharp (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. After a few years it stops being a problem (you're much more likely to find the current username than an older one). Of course if I were to hypothetically change it again today I would be drowning in these disclaimers for a while! Double sharp (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Double sharp:, that depends on who is doing the looking. Some editors who spend time on this page and its companion are interested in Wikipedia history  :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"We" miss you ?

If an editor announces their intentions, ie.. "retired" or "long wikibreak" how can they be considered missing ? This should be a list of users who just abruptly stop, that's missing. Just my 2¢ Mlpearc (open channel) 18:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I believe this topic was discussed before on this talk page. I skimmed for it, but cannot locate it right now, Can you find it? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

pasted from the wikipedia space

  • Unschool (talk · contribs · count) – Left a wikibreak notice on his user page on November 13, 2009 indicating that he hoped to be back in Summer 2010. In June 2012 said he hoped to be back at some point in the future; reappeared briefly in November 2013 to say much the same. Update: I have returned. Am considering a name change. Glad to be back, albeit in a much less active capacity than my first five years. Unschool 08:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Unschool: It is always nice to see editors returning. There is still a lot of work to do. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinions please - what info should be displayed?

As the list grows longer and more editors contribute to it - what information should be included for each entry, and what can be omitted? For example:

  • Links to userpage, talkpage, contributions
plus
  • For admins (and former admins): blocks, protections, deletions, page moves, rights, RfA
  • For non-admins: edit count
  • Date of last edit
  • Number of edits (approximate)
  • Date of first edit
  • Left retiremnet note on talk page
  • Blocked
  • Remains active on sister projects
  • Other?

Please voice your wishes -- what is important for you to know? XOttawahitech (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The instructions imply that blocked accounts aren't in the scope of this page. I'm sure there's a concern about glorifying whatever behaviour led to the block. However, when someone makes extensive contributions but is blocked anyway, that may reveal deficiencies in the Wikipedia culture or processes. We can learn and improve from their stories.
The data you listed looks suitable. I've seen entries containing pithy summaries of writers' activities and the circumstances of their departures. Those don't need to be in every entry. I'm guessing you're working on a template that would display the information you listed. If so, it looks perfect as it is. —rybec 23:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the entries should contain links to a user's user page and actions, the date of their last contribution, a brief description of what they did (including edit count or length of service where relevant), and why they thleft if known. Therefore the info on most f the entries is adequate is it is, in my opinion. Graham87 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
And info about what the users are doing on sister projects wouldn't hurt, too, in certain cases. Graham87 15:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Consensus in the previous section seems to be that they do not belong on this list if they are active on sister projects, so I would take that out, personally. But then again we're still mulling it over. LazyBastardGuy 22:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Offtopic offshoot

User:Alpha Quadrant who has just joined the ranks of the missing was one of the wikipedia evangelists on the Yahoo!-Answers-wikipedia-“board” (“category” in Yahooanswerese) together with User:Nihiltres and user: Elitre who, I think, are still evangelizing there. This Yahoo! Answers board functions as a sort of a wikipedia help desk, and I personally found it to be very useful.

I know Yahoo!s are looked down upon at Wikipedia, and IMO this is a real shame. Just like any other locale, offline or online, Yahoo! did attract some excellent contributors over the years, and Wikipedia is losing a great opportunity to recruit them now that Yahoo!, as a content builder at least, is on the way out.

I hope this is not considered WP:OUTING? - OK this is becoming WP:TLDR. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain what you're trying to say here, or how it's relevant to the topic at hand (no disrespect intended; I'm just having a hard time seeing the point you're trying to convey). And just to put you at ease, I'm certain this hardly qualifies as outing. LazyBastardGuy 04:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@LazyBastardGuy: Thanks for keeping this topic alive. To confuse everyone even more: Have you ever heard the term what goes around comes around? In my experience this applies not only to people but also to organizations, Wikipedia for example. (Translation: An organization's actions, whether good or bad, will often have consequences for that organization).
Too many people here either forget or are not aware that one of the factors that contributed to Wikipedia’s success is the help it got from Google and Yahoo!, to name just a couple of organizations, who helped Wikipedia build up enough momentum to become the number 5(?) website on the internet. Now that we have millions of contributors/articles/web views is not the time to forget who helped us get here. Just my $.02 XOttawahitech (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait, I think I understand. Are you saying if we know people to be active on other websites in capacities related to what they did on this wiki we should/should not list them here? In my view, we would not want to list them on a missing persons' page, since missing implies, well, we don't know where they are. LazyBastardGuy 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure why I was pinged here :) I'm not missing, but if I was, I wouldn't mind if my entry featured a reference to Answers, since I mention that on my userpage on it.wp. I'd guess that the level of detail shouldn't go beyond what the user states about him/her in his/her userpages and what can be retrieved by logs on wiki (i.e. blocked or not). HTH. --Elitre (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for adminship involvement

Earlier today when I was leaving a message for User_talk:Cameron telling him he had been added to MW, I noticed he had created a page, User_talk:Cameron/Rfa_thanks1. I am assuming Cameron was a regular participant in the wp:RFA process, and that enough nominees came to his talk page to thank him for his support, that he saw fit to create a page just for their thanks.

What do others here think, should this be mentioned on his entry in MW? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this should be mentioned; it just indicates that the user !voted in a lot of RFA's of people who were inclined to later thank supporters for their !votes. Thanking people for supporting an RFA seems to be more of an older practice; I haven't encountered it for a while, and I've voted on several RFA's in the past couple of years. Graham87 13:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Don't add users with fewer than ~1,000 edits"

I know we have discussed this before, but I wonder if a fresh examination may be in order. In my wiki-travels I come across some very impressive editors who could easily pass the 1,000 magic number if they simply divided each contribution into two. I met such an editor in Detroit bankruptcy: this editor (user:Pechmerle) basically built the article pretty much single-handedly, yet managed to get consensus on the talkpage unfailingly. So what do others say, can we make exeptions to the rule sometimes? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If their contribution are particularly outstanding, and they're definitely missing, I guess we can make an exception. Graham87 14:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you find out why someone has been removed from the list?

A Missing editor I have come across more than once (user:Taxman), was added to the list in 2012, but is no longer listed. Just wanted to follow up to see who removed him from the list and why, but wikiblame comes up empty-handed. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiBlame isn't well-suited to figuring out when text was added/removed within a short space of time; I tried it on several settings but nothing worked. After a bit of toing and froing, I manually figured out that Taxman removed himself from the list back in December 2012. Graham87 09:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It was his third last edit in 2012 with an edit summay: not missing, just not as active - I should have checked his contributions before posting, D'oh! Thanks again Graham87. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How to find out which editors stopped editing on a certain date

Hi. I am trying to hem in on an editor that I am now 99% certain is a reincarnation of a blocked editor with about ten aliasses and socks. The editor started editing on October 30 2014. I had earlier found his last edit under the previous name, constacted an admin about it, then was flloeded with work and could not work on it. Now I can't find that specific last edit.

Tha's why I have come to this page, in the hope that someone can tell me whether there is a way of finding out editors who made their last edit on a specific date, in this case on October 29. Thanks, any help will be most welcome. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't you just go to his/her User page, click on the Contributions link and see? You can see their last and their first edit. But I don't believe there is any way to find all of the millions of edits made on a particular day. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That's the point - I can't go to the user page if I don't know what the user name is: today he is Mr ABC, but I need to know what name he was using before changing to Mr ABC. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you want this information but if it is just a simple name change, search on Wikipedia:Changing username for previous usernames. If it was a "clean start", then there is no way to connect the old username with the new username. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. Thanks for tryig to help. However, either you do not understand what I am talking about or you don't understand how it works. I have been more than clear, don't know how else to put it. Or else, which is the more likely alternative, you have not paid attention to what you are reading, otherwise you would not say "I'm not sure why you want this information" and — even worse — "if it is just a simple name change ...". Of course is is NOT a simple name change, it is sock investigation. I appreciate you trying to help, but if it is not something that falls within your area of expertise, please rather not. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Clean start

I'm not sure what (if anything) I should do about this. I see an editor who is listed as "missing" but they actually are active with a clean start account. It's strange to see them listed as missing when they are not but I'm not sure if removing their name or providing an explanation would be seen as violating some policy. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just remove them, saying they've got a clean-start account. No need to name it. Graham87 05:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Graham. I also noticed that the admin Phaedriel is not listed and when I looked into her departure, well, it seems like there is a lot unspoken and it's clear she was much beloved. Is there a reason she isn't listed here? Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Phaedriel's on the list, in the "P" section. Graham87 09:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Graham, I don't know how I missed that. I scanned the list several times. Liz Read! Talk! 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for raising the issue of wp:cleanstart, user:liz. I would tend to leave the mw listing alone. Being added to the list may give a boost to some deserving editors. Just a thought. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure that's an issue in this case but I'll keep that in mind. It's just odd to see someone listed as missing who is actually active. Liz Read! Talk! 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

BritishWatcher

Does BritishWatcher qaulify for this list? We haven't seen any contributions from BW sinc September 2013. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Automated messages

I came across this inactive editor, which raised a query, should automated message, ie. The Bugle, The Singpost, be disabled for inactive users (after a defined time period) as this can lessen the bots job load. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is sometimes done for absent editors. If I recall, it's a pretty simple procedure. It's a question of who wants to take responsibility to this. Typically, it's a WP friend of the absent editor who stops the bot deliveries. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Add

Add Graham. Has 1505 edits. Inactive since 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.227.113.66 (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, despite my clear conflict of interest. :-) Graham87 06:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

add Fram. inactive since dec 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.156.79 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Add

No hurt feelings . . .

That's right—the fact that I did not make an edit for over 18 months, yet was never placed on this page, does not mean my feelings have been hurt. No sirree, not me.  :-) HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@HuskyHuskie: Well, I'm glad you didn't take the oversight personally. Beyond the fact that this is a volunteer effort, editors often return after being added to this list which I think leads to some hesitancy to add more names unless they've been gone for years. What's important here is that you're still editing. This list isn't an honor but rather a graveyard of cautionary tales. If Wikipedia is able to retain you as an editor then we're succeeding. Adding your name only serves to document our failure to keep you on as a contributor. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to add two things: 1) Not everyone who noticed you were gone necessarily knows about this page, as this is more on the underbelly of Wikipedia (and would not be visible to more casual users), and 2) Not everyone who was involved with this page would find out about you. If I notice someone's missing, I follow the steps necessary to add that person to the page (or at least I used to, haven't been here for awhile), but people don't just magically notice when someone goes missing, ya know. ;) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Missing_Wikipedians/Archive_4&oldid=1142512508"