Gone (and possibly forgotten), Missing in action (or missing inaction)? Options

[carbuncle]

I've noticed that some of the editors who have been discussed here have quietly (or in some cases, not so quietly) disappeared. I'm starting a list, more for curiosity's sake than any real purpose. I don't feel that WR is directly responsible for these editors leaving WP, but there is a connection.

User:J - J stopped editing shortly they were briefly discussed here. No retirement message, no goodbyes, just stopped.

User:Benjiboi - a popular topic of discussion here and at WP, Benjiboi disappeared after this discussion at WP:AN laid out the interconnections between Benjiboi, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and various gay porn companies. Possibly just waiting for many many edits discussing their autobiographies to be oversighted so they can continue to pretend that they have no conflicts of interest.

User:David Shankbone - well, blocked for 6 months on en.wiki, but no obvious use of sockpuppets so far (at least none that I have noticed).

Feel free to add more.

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Tue 29th December 2009, 4:16pm

[Eva Destruction]

God help me, but I actually think Shankbone was treated harshly there. He's a self-publicizing asshole, but so are half the people on Wikipedia. If I was banned from Wikipedia for doing no more than what friends of The Cabal get away with on a daily basis (Greg may know the feeling), my reaction would be "fuck you, Jimbo" and walk out, too. Fair play to him.

[Nerd]

None of those characters will be missed will they?

This post has been edited by Nerd: Tue 29th December 2009, 4:22pm

[Lar]

User:J

None of those characters will be missed will they?

_eepers, I don't know about you but I am not sure _ust how I will get things done without one of them. I mean, _esus' name is going to be hard to take in vain, for one thing.

[A Horse With No Name]

Tarantino has already pointed out in another thread that the admin User:AdjustShift promptly disappeared in October after an IP fingered him as being a sockpuppet and we wondered aloud here whether that accusation was correct.

[Alison]

User:J - J stopped editing shortly they were briefly discussed here. No retirement message, no goodbyes, just stopped.

User:J tangled with a *coff* really banned editor who went on to write an attack article on ED using his RL identity (and his mom's. Said banned editor hates women). The article was removed but the damage had been done. 'nuff said.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Is there any way, to truly tell if anyone is really gone from Wikidpedia...

[Alison]

Is there any way, to truly tell if anyone is really gone from Wikidpedia...

Yes

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Is there any way, to truly tell if anyone is really gone from Wikidpedia...

Yes

I meant short of death...smart arse

[Casliber]

Is there any way, to truly tell if anyone is really gone from Wikidpedia...

Yes

I meant short of death...smart arse

There are plenty of sensible editors who never edit-warred or got overly involved in drama who have quietly just moved onto other things - wikiproject dinosaurs had a few great editors who've moved on, and the project has become alot quieter. ~~~~

[Alison]

alot quieter. ~~~~

Oops! Spot the Wikipedian

[everyking]

There are plenty of sensible editors who never edit-warred or got overly involved in drama who have quietly just moved onto other things - wikiproject dinosaurs had a few great editors who've moved on, and the project has become alot quieter. ~~~~

I've always thought that the idea that "people naturally come and go" is unhealthy for the project. The fact is, too many people leave--fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but when there's a widespread tendency for people edit intensely for a while and then "retire", I think that's a real problem. Wikipedia ought to identify it as a problem and try to develop solutions.

[A Horse With No Name]

I've always thought that the idea that "people naturally come and go" is unhealthy for the project. The fact is, too many people leave--fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but when there's a widespread tendency for people edit intensely for a while and then "retire", I think that's a real problem. Wikipedia ought to identify it as a problem and try to develop solutions.

It is called "real life." People drift in and out of our lives. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Incredibly, some people have real lives that require their attention. And, let's face it, Wikipedia can get pretty boring -- it is easy to get distracted by a new adventure or hobby.

[everyking]

I've always thought that the idea that "people naturally come and go" is unhealthy for the project. The fact is, too many people leave--fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but when there's a widespread tendency for people edit intensely for a while and then "retire", I think that's a real problem. Wikipedia ought to identify it as a problem and try to develop solutions.

It is called "real life." People drift in and out of our lives. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Incredibly, some people have real lives that require their attention. And, let's face it, Wikipedia can get pretty boring -- it is easy to get distracted by a new adventure or hobby.

I think it's important to distinguish between "getting distracted by something else" and "retiring forever". Why should one so often lead to the other? Like I said, fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but sudden retirements after periods of high activity suggest a systemic problem when they occur so frequently.

[GlassBeadGame]

I think it's important to distinguish between "getting distracted by something else" and "retiring forever". Why should one so often lead to the other?

Because editing Wikipedia is lame and pathetic. Once people figure that out they feel embarrassed that they ever participated.

[Malleus]

I've always thought that the idea that "people naturally come and go" is unhealthy for the project. The fact is, too many people leave--fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but when there's a widespread tendency for people edit intensely for a while and then "retire", I think that's a real problem. Wikipedia ought to identify it as a problem and try to develop solutions.

It is called "real life." People drift in and out of our lives. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Incredibly, some people have real lives that require their attention. And, let's face it, Wikipedia can get pretty boring -- it is easy to get distracted by a new adventure or hobby.

I think that's right. Whatever anyone who's never written more than a crappy stub says, it takes some effort to write a GA/FA, and there comes a time when you begin to wonder if it's worth that effort. That's why so many present themselves at RfA; it's a trivial diversion from the real work.

I think it's important to distinguish between "getting distracted by something else" and "retiring forever". Why should one so often lead to the other?

Because editing Wikipedia is lame and pathetic. Once people figure that out they feel embarrassed that they ever participated.

Parts of wikipedia are excellent. Admittedly though, probably about 75% of it should be deleted as bollocks.

[MBisanz]

I've always thought that the idea that "people naturally come and go" is unhealthy for the project. The fact is, too many people leave--fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but when there's a widespread tendency for people edit intensely for a while and then "retire", I think that's a real problem. Wikipedia ought to identify it as a problem and try to develop solutions.

It is called "real life." People drift in and out of our lives. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Incredibly, some people have real lives that require their attention. And, let's face it, Wikipedia can get pretty boring -- it is easy to get distracted by a new adventure or hobby.

I think it's important to distinguish between "getting distracted by something else" and "retiring forever". Why should one so often lead to the other? Like I said, fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but sudden retirements after periods of high activity suggest a systemic problem when they occur so frequently.

That was the point of starting WP:WikiProject Editing trends.

[Malleus]

I've always thought that the idea that "people naturally come and go" is unhealthy for the project. The fact is, too many people leave--fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but when there's a widespread tendency for people edit intensely for a while and then "retire", I think that's a real problem. Wikipedia ought to identify it as a problem and try to develop solutions.

It is called "real life." People drift in and out of our lives. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Incredibly, some people have real lives that require their attention. And, let's face it, Wikipedia can get pretty boring -- it is easy to get distracted by a new adventure or hobby.

I think it's important to distinguish between "getting distracted by something else" and "retiring forever". Why should one so often lead to the other? Like I said, fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but sudden retirements after periods of high activity suggest a systemic problem when they occur so frequently.

That was the point of starting WP:WikiProject Editing trends.

An interesting project. I find File:Active_admins.png a particularly encouraging graph.

[The Joy]

I've always thought that the idea that "people naturally come and go" is unhealthy for the project. The fact is, too many people leave--fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but when there's a widespread tendency for people edit intensely for a while and then "retire", I think that's a real problem. Wikipedia ought to identify it as a problem and try to develop solutions.

It is called "real life." People drift in and out of our lives. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Incredibly, some people have real lives that require their attention. And, let's face it, Wikipedia can get pretty boring -- it is easy to get distracted by a new adventure or hobby.

I think it's important to distinguish between "getting distracted by something else" and "retiring forever". Why should one so often lead to the other? Like I said, fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but sudden retirements after periods of high activity suggest a systemic problem when they occur so frequently.

That was the point of starting WP:WikiProject Editing trends.

An interesting project. I find File:Active_admins.png a particularly encouraging graph.

Has there been an explanation for that sudden dip near the end?

It is difficult to read that chart.

[MBisanz]

I've always thought that the idea that "people naturally come and go" is unhealthy for the project. The fact is, too many people leave--fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but when there's a widespread tendency for people edit intensely for a while and then "retire", I think that's a real problem. Wikipedia ought to identify it as a problem and try to develop solutions.

It is called "real life." People drift in and out of our lives. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

Incredibly, some people have real lives that require their attention. And, let's face it, Wikipedia can get pretty boring -- it is easy to get distracted by a new adventure or hobby.

I think it's important to distinguish between "getting distracted by something else" and "retiring forever". Why should one so often lead to the other? Like I said, fluctuations in activity level are understandable, but sudden retirements after periods of high activity suggest a systemic problem when they occur so frequently.

That was the point of starting WP:WikiProject Editing trends.

An interesting project. I find File:Active_admins.png a particularly encouraging graph.

Has there been an explanation for that sudden dip near the end?

It is difficult to read that chart.

I believe that was an error from when the toolserver database was corrupted. File:ActiveAdmins 10-11-2009.png is a better version I believe.