8

Just noticed that this user deleted their account few hours ago. It is unfortunate that we didn't throw a farewell party before it happened :'((

47
  • 8
    Anyone know why? I was looking forward to having them back after the year's suspension (still no idea what that was about) . A few helpful comments and then this bombshell :( Jan 19 at 21:34
  • 5
    One really annoying thing about this is that you get used to seeing names that you trust on answers. If I saw an answer from l'electeur I could be pretty sure it was going to be high quality and accurate. I have no idea about the answers of user4032. Although, considering my username, I guess I can't complain :) Jan 19 at 21:40
  • 6
    How unfortunate! I also had no idea that they'd been suspended, nor why. The SE functionality that removes user names is really not helpful to the site -- even if a user is deactivated, the user name is still helpful to site readers. The fact that we lose not just @lélecteur's future contributions, but also effectively their past contributions, is quite a blow... Jan 19 at 23:39
  • 4
    @EiríkrÚtlendi Ditto. I've just become accustomed to associating user1478 on Japanese SE and user230 on ELL with snail. Now here's another one I have to make sure I know.
    – Eddie Kal
    Jan 19 at 23:47
  • 3
    I salute their contributions, but I would refrain from titling this post "Rest in peace", since it usually indicates a more permanent retirement...
    – jogloran
    Jan 20 at 23:35
  • 4
    "Goodbye to l'électeur"? "l'électeur, you will be missed"? Many, many others that don't imply the poster's demise 😅
    – jogloran
    Jan 20 at 23:59
  • 6
    @dungariqn FWIW I lost 494 rep from it, so it’s not like he was downvoting everyone. Jan 22 at 2:22
  • 3
    Oh, I hadn't noticed it was him until today... For the record, I lost some reps from this (1890 lost from cancelled upvotes; 342 gained from cancelled downvotes; -1548 total), but since he was one of the most aggressive voters (in both directions), I had thought the change would be much bigger.
    – naruto
    Jan 22 at 5:13
  • 3
    4400 loss for me. suspect he was rather more lenient on question askers than answerers. Jan 22 at 8:34
  • 3
    @DariusJahandarie , well then I guess the almost only downvoter was him I guess? I do remember that I had at least 5 posts with negative score. Anyway, thanks for your input, but I am currently have no motivations to fix it(so instead I'm going to delete that; it has better answer anyway.) I do agree on what you wrote though; I was relatively new at that time, so instead of explaining everything I just went for "it's just like that". That's my bad for that, I'll make sure I won't do that in future.
    – Skye-AT
    Jan 27 at 1:39
  • 5
    I had a net loss of 36 points, as lélecteur had evidently upvoted me 4 times and downvoted me 2 times. I take this as clear evidence that lélecteur used a sliding scale (i.e., was more critical of those with more expertise and more lenient with those, like me, whose knowledge is very limited). I have certainly learned a great deal from lélecteur's contributions to the site, and I'll miss them.
    – Nanigashi
    Jan 27 at 19:31
  • 3
    Is there anyone who was downvoted by him more times than me (171 times)? :D @Skye-AT I'm pretty certain that most silent downvotes on this site were by him. Actually, serial silent downvoting was the very reason he had his account suspended for the second time. I think this won't happen again.
    – naruto
    Jan 28 at 16:44
  • 3
    @EiríkrÚtlendi How exactly is downvoting posts you think are low quality "not cool"? That is literally why the functionality exists. It's fine for the community to encourage leaving comments, but the scoring system here is the one thing that separates this site from some useless bulletin board style forum, so it's not fine for the community to complete vilify downvotes. It's natural for one of the (former) best answerers on the site to have a strong opinion about what's good/bad, and he chose to act on it. (Serial downvoting regardless of post quality is obviously different & unacceptable.) Feb 2 at 15:27
  • 3
    @EddieKal For example, naruto has 5011 answers on the site. l'électeur's 171 downvotes is 3.4% of his answers. Now I've never downvoted any of naruto's answers, but mostly because I don't feel particular qualified to even have a strong negative opinion on the majority of them. I can only upvote when it aligns with my beliefs and seems useful and clear. l'électeur is a native speaker, (I believe) an older one with professional experience in the language, generally an opinionated fellow, and was very active on the site, so it's unsurprising to me he might downvote a small percentage of them. Feb 2 at 19:01
  • 5
    l'électeur wasn't the only one. We have other users, very knowledgeable, massively helpful users who could be nicer in some aspects of their contributions. We have quite a few contributors with loads of distinct personality. But I just don't think crucifying l'électeur on his dv is fair, because he was (and still is) enormously and lastingly helpful. "He should've at least left a comment" just sounds like asking a tad too much. If you ask em, I'd like to ask a LOT of askers to be sure to upvote and accept good answers. That'd, IMHO, be a bigger leap towards making community members feel good.
    – Eddie Kal
    Feb 3 at 6:22

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .