Commons talk:We miss you

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
FAQ
Q: Are there any rules about adding people to the list
A: Not many. Just make sure the person you add was indeed a member of the community of Wikimedia Commons and be sure he or she is not just taking a wikibreak (if you are a fan of hard figures you can look at the inclusion criteria of the English or German wikipedia; but please remember that they are not binding here). Also - and this is important - phrase the reason the user left in a neutral way and do not make accusation as this might lead to counter-accousations and endless discussion, which contradicts the purpose of this page, which is to remember valuable contributors in a dignified way.

-unsigned comment by Isderion

Criteria (2013)[edit]

There is an editor, who I definitely miss, who uploaded some fantastic images to commons. There is enough information given that some other people would remember him. So is the page only for some editors and not others ? what about some criteria for inclusion. I would have thought people you miss would be ok. Are we excluding blocked / banned / anyone disliked by one ? The editor I refer to is not blocked or banned, and a lot of people probably miss him as much as I do. He is welcome here and I hope he returns someday, even if he uses a pen-name, of flickr for that matter. (sigh)

This page is two days old, so I guess not many people would be watching it, and I figure missing people is human nature, so I'll add it to the list of RfC's to invite some views from everyone. I think it is a sensitive issue, being a matter of the heart... Penyulap ☏ 08:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

‎Túrelio, rather than edit warring, maybe you can talk about what part or aspect of the inclusion of the editor you don't like or think is 'soap-boxing' because as I see it, it can't be, the editor IS welcome on commons, is not blocked banned or anything else, but is gone, and missed. What part of this is supposed to be the problem ? you started the page and so you own it ? is that the problem, do tell. Penyulap ☏ 09:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restored the page. Penyulap, you will be blocked if you continue being a nuisance. Multichill (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's more a statement of your personal dislike of me, rather than a framework for inclusion of editors on the page. Perhaps you'd like to move past the name-calling and comment on the issue ? or not. Penyulap ☏ 13:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems more attractive than Commons:Meet our photographers; so I wish to add myself as quick as possible. Pen, ping me in frequent intervals and add me if you don't get any reply for a while. Clin JKadavoor Jee 16:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping you hourly and add you as soon as you goto sleep tonight. Actually, you haven't edited for a few moments, has it been long enough yet ?
But seriously, I would hate to lose any of the kind friends I have made here, so don't go disappearing !!! If you do, yes, I shall consider it an honour to ensure that you are remembered properly. Something tasteful, "Jkadavoor, last seen in 2015, spinning a cocoon" or some such Penyulap ☏ 17:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

I have to ask, what is the actual criteria for inclusion here? Because it seems to me there are several people on there that we're all happier without. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we become so much a believer in ourselves as representing the community, that we forget there are others. "all happier without" is obviously not true. Someone added the name. Even "majority" is often not established by process. "We" here must refer to those who add a listing, and any who confirm it. It can be argued that any listing may be reverted, but if it is restored by another user, this enters the realm of "we," and should be left. This is not a place to argue that users were nasty, abusive, we are better off without them, or I might be tempted to say such about some. It would be useless argument, accomplishing nothing for the project but more disruption and disagreement. --Abd (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or you mean there are so many people who want to vanish? Jee 08:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mattbuck means that there are certain person listed that Mattbuck dislikes (e.g. Delicious_carbuncle, Pieter Kuiper, Fred the Oyster), and Mattbuck would prefer for these people to not be listed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm; then there is no need of this page as at least one person don't like all (as a human nature). Isderion clearly mentioned on top of this page (although I disagreed with him in many matters) that "phrase the reason the user left in a neutral way and do not make accusation as this might lead to counter-accousations and endless discussion, which contradicts the purpose of this page, which is to remember valuable contributors in a dignified way." We may disagree with many; but we are all human; no need of a "grave dance" when one retire due to death or lack of interest. There is no need to omit any too. But if somebody want to be vanished from memories, that also should be considered. BTW, it seems Isderion also disappeared from Commons. Jee 12:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to add Isderion to the list, but then I noticed that he or she made a revision to dewiki several days ago. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt, I fully understand what you mean. However, if you look who has most edits on this talkpage and if you take a look into the early history of the page (not the talkpage), you will understand the problem. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denniss and Nemo_bis shouldn't force people to be forgotten. Damnatio memoriae isn't and shouldn't be an acceptable punishment here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently the only participant of the edit war to have participated in this talk page discussion. People are forgetting Penyulap's helpful, useful contributions to Commons. There isn't a single flawless person on that page, and it's wrong to demand flawlessness in order to gain entry on that page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this page should not serve to revive a conflict. In consequence, we should either allow a sympathetic summary line to be added about an editor who is missed, if not by all but at least by some other Wikimedians, even if it is not a representative statement by the community. Or we must include only cases without such a conflict. In my experience, most came here to contribute positively even if it occasionally did not work out for whatever reason. In such a case I would like to see if we could remember their positive work and focus on this in the miss you line. Even if someone departed under not so happy circumstances, we can be grateful. In summary, I would support the line Michaeldsuarez tried to add. But I would also ask all to stop edit-warring until we settle this here, preferably less by discussing this particular case but by finding a general approach how lines can be added on this page. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be reserved for people actually helping the project with lots of valuable contributions (images, helping with maintenance work, former admins etc) but not for those damaging the project. Pennyulap may have had some valuable contributions but most of his actions had the opposite effect. --Denniss (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding blocked users? Lotje (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your link leads to the English-language Wikipedia, and it's kind of irrelevant to us who is or isn't blocked there. Penyulap isn't currently blocked here. I don't care if he's added, I really don't, but enwiki's admin actions aren't an argument in either direction. darkweasel94 14:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is good to know. Lotje (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denniss, I think this page should be reserved for those people who are actually missed, i.e. where an editor in good standing choses to remember someone who left by dedicating a line in a sympathetic way that revives no conflict. More openness is not harmful. This is not a hall of fame or of past heroes at Commons. And, BTW, I had hoped that we can discuss this without refering to an actual case. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to censor this page[edit]

It is disappointing to see repeated edit wars, even after friendly warnings from other editors and admins. It is the most stupid idea to attack an editor if we have previous bad experience with him. Penyulap had edit warred with me when I try to remove his off topic comment on FPC and even tried to attack me. But such things are not a reason to keep him away from my life forever. He was wise and made many thoughtful comments in many complicated discussions, including this. Jee 10:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made only bad experience with him. He pretended to be an admin, disturbed serious discussions with nonsense, interfered wherever possible with meaningless comments, he had a hilarious time playing around here and tried to be funny. But that is not what the job here is. I forgot, he made some good PNG-images like hundreds other members here did to, none of them will shine up on the list. If there are that many people with the same view like me here, its better not to push his name. --Maxxl2 - talk 10:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the people doing the missing be listed for each entry?[edit]

I had a conversation with Abd regarding the disagreements over who may be included on this page, and Abd believes that the people who are doing the missing should be listed visible on the page, perhaps within a collapsible box for each entry. I would like to hear the thoughts of these invested in this page (watchers), as well as the the wider community, before making any change that would have a visible effect on the format of the page. here's the basic idea, and since Abd says it best, I'll quote from him:

Here is what I see on this particular issue. That page, as it is, invites controversy. Because contributions are not signed, they are, as it were, representing the entire community. That is offensive to those who found that user offensive! Hence I'd suggest that contributions to that page be signed. They are then the opinion of the contributor, and not of the community, necessarily. […]

Then, others may add their signature as well. For brevity, these would be just user names. Not full timestamped signatures. […]

I think Commons has collapse templates. Make it easy to maintain and efficient. So someone creates the "missing" listing, and then others add signatures within the collapse. Seems simple, and expresses appreciation for the user. Very much, I'd avoid anything like a vote [for each new entry to the page]. Formula for useless debate.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose collapsible template for each person that many people can comment on and sign. --Jarekt (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lotje (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  21:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. What does everyone think? I can still make adjustments, and I welcome any suggestions for improvement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad. I would handle this page in this way. First of all, any user in good standing may list. No IPs. We might nail this down a little more, I don't think we'd want SPAs listing as their only edit. Second, if someone thinks there would be nobody else missing the person, they may remove the listing. That should be done civilly, no insults against anyone. Just, say, "I don't think anyone else misses this person." Then if someone else restores it, done. Two users miss, "we" applies. No revert warring if a proposed listing has been restored independently, and no revert warring if the first attempt is reverted. Go find someone else to co-sign. Personal canvassing allowed, if not otherwise offensive. Please do not spam the Village Pump for someone to cosign! Disruption here, from any user, should not be tolerated.
The listings should be signed. It does matter who misses. Any listing with only one support would be eligible to be blanked, but, of course, it could easily be brought back by anyone else, who then also signs it, and that listing is done, will stay, unless a signer changes their mind. If a user has been banned, it could be argued that their signatures should be removed from this page, because they are no longer part of "us." But banned users may be listed.
Yes, it might take some courage to list an unpopular user here. That makes it all the more meaningful. But, please, no controversial arguments. If a user made positive contributions, that could be said. It's just a signed opinion and listing here establishes no official status. --Abd (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, some kind of posthumous popularity contest? In theory Abd's semi-protection idea makes sense, but so far there were no anonymous or SPA contributions, and one humorous self-nomination was rejected within four hours. I support the idea that a disputed nomination needs a second to justify some kind of we. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really a fan of making the missers visible either, yet all this was done in order to avoid a popularity contest. This all started back in April 2014, when a person attempted to remove an user he or she disliked from the list, and that person's obsession with keeping that name off continued into December 2014 and March 2015 (this month). That person even threatened to block me in order to have his way with the page (such behavior is apparently a habit of his). As we've stated on Abd's talk page, the last thing Abd and I want is a vote (popularity contest) for each entry. This page shouldn't be restricted to popular, establishment-endorsed users only, and in order in avoid having a vote for each entry, changes, such as the introduction of visible signatures, needed to be made. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In theory (in a parallel universe far away) that could be an attempt to implement a rule, where missed users must have been active for at least three years from first to last contribution. In practice it might be nearer to the jerks vs. dicks war. Next scene, some bureaucrat protects the page, because missing globally banned users is illegal.:-( –Be..anyone (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Denniss has resorted to page protection in order to win disputes in the past ([1], [2], [3]), so him locking the page is a real possibility, not just something to joke about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I missed a lot of people here. But will not sign under any until someone restore Penyulap. Who care a political "miss you". Jee 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC) He edited recently. Jee 10:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Political" is not a synonym for Bad and Wrong. In fact, that someone is missed often would have a political basis, politics merely means "of or relating to government or public affairs." Jee, if you miss someone, you may add your signature -- or restore a deleted "nomination," with your signature added plus the original. If what I've proposed is accepted, two people missing someone is enough, no fuss, no muss, it becomes "we," without requiring a majority or consensus -- except on the process. If a user is being excluded here based on someone's personal opinion of that user, when there are clearly users (more than one) who do miss the user, that exclusion is disruptive and the user should be warned and sanctioned, and I don't care how many special rights they have, unless the community has authorized that enforcement. This is not an accusation of any particular user, and my long-term position has been that a sanction should never be applied without a violated warning. It's a wiki, we get to make mistakes, and they can be fixed. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I  Oppose including who misses who on the actual page, though there probably ought to be a discussion here before adding people. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I need to discuss whether or not I miss someone? Requiring a discussion before expression is creating what is ultimately useless. We miss a user or not, and by making it clear here that "we" means at least N non-banned users, or one and no opposition, we avoid work that will not improve this wiki at all, and could only generate heat, not light. The signatures are collapsed. They simply make it obvious for anyone who cares how many have "missed" the person. Referring to history, the other way, creates a lot of unnecessary work for many. Keep it simple. I've suggested N as two, because that's enough to be a "we." We could make N larger than two, creating more disruption, reversion, and controversy before a listing is settled. And if there were a discussion, we'd need a close, more complication and work. --Abd (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Abd. What would benefit everyone is a process that's as painless as possible. Having a vote for each entry would be painful for everyone involved. The "We miss you" page should be devoid of pain and misery. The page needs to be inviting and kind, especially to those being missed. The page exists for the "missed", not for us who remain. If you're offended by an entry, then you need to keep in mind that the entry exists for the "missed", not for you who remain. Voting would prioritize the wrong people; voting benefits those who remain, not those who are "missed". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added two users here recently. So far I am the only who has signed in the {{Missed}} template for those two users. I think that the two users I have selected are pretty no-brainer non-controversial users, who were just either very productive or added exceptional content. I guess the only question if they should remain there would be a "threshold" of "how missed" they are. However, here a few days after it sort of feels wrong that I have single-handedly added them, without anyone else weighing in, that they agree on my preferences. And I have the same feeling for the selection of users that, e.g., Michaeldsuarez added recently. Either I am not familiar with the users, or it is users, which I certainly do not miss, or who I feel not really has contributed much of value to the community. That is, I am in disagreement with "missing them", and I feel that some of them are perhaps mostly mentioned because they are members of Wikipediocracy, have caused havoc here and has been added to subtly troll this page. (Mind you, Michaeldsuarez, that may not have been your intention, and I may be wrong in this viewpoint, but that it is how I perceive it). To discourage that users are added in order to make some POINT (or it can be speculated that they are added to make some point), I propose that users, who are not on the list, and who are "missed" could be nominated on a "missed nominees" subpage, and once n has signed on the subpage for the particular user (I propose n=3, to avoid the most obvious canvassing), users can be added to the actual page and removed from the nominations page. Once nominated users get on the page they stay there, unless they become active again, in which case they shall be reomved from the page. I would propose no signing of the users missing them on the actual "missed" page. Otherwise, it will turn it into a "missed" popularity contest, which I think is unhealthy. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone may add a listing. It will not be removed just because nobody else has signed it. It might be removed if someone dislikes it and nobody else has signed (that's the reason for the signatures, for starters!) You may disagree with Users X and Y missing User Z. But they do! This level of tolerance for each other is basic. Making a different page the "popularity contest" won't help. There is no contest. If a hundred users miss someone, or two, what's the problem with them saying so? The very point of missing users is that those users are not active. The page display does not show the approvals, they are there only in collapse. There is no obvious comparison.
And the harm of canvassing? This page is not a decision process. It is purely expressive. If a thousand users sign here that they miss User:Bete Noir, it will have zero effect on a block or anything else. If people want Bete unblocked or unbanned, they will have to use process for that, where consensus will be assessed, not this page. If Bete's supporters try to pull this stunt, let them be silly (as another might think).
Just keep the page in order, and anyone may remove signatures from banned users who have voted, blocked socks, the like of that. I'd have the page be semiprotected, because this is a list of identified users who miss other users. There is no point to IP listings, and if non-autoconfirmed users can't edit here, we eliminate ab initio major disruptive short-term socks, reducing maintenance work.
Suppose I know someone from Wikipediocracy. And I miss their presence here. So what? The harm of my expressing that is? I have been banned on Wikipediocracy, for about a year. And that is meaningless here. Let's stay focused on our purpose here, curating a compilation of freely licensed media, and allow the community to breathe. Freedom is important, people work much more efficiently when free.
The proposal is designed for efficiency and simplicity, so that this page does not become another major maintenance task. --Abd (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of Liamdavies, I've only created entries for people I know or had encounters with. This isn't strange or disturbing behavior. It's a given that people will only add people they know rather than complete strangers to the page. I like using light-heartened descriptions. I'm not fond of dull, humorless comments. I'm not using the page to disrupt the wiki. The page lacks the visibility needed to create a disturbance or be a worthwhile trolling target.
I don't believe that this page should be restricted to the "non-controversial" or to "no-brainers". My experience with users here is different from yours, and yours is different from others. This page is meant to be subjective. It's built of feelings and longing for the return of the missed. It isn't supposed to be "neutral" or "objective". This isn't an encyclopedic article; it's a wall of messages and prayers. The page doesn't represent a particular point of view, and the disclaimer makes it clear that it doesn't even represent a community-wide point of view. Once voting occurs and the page is restricted to the "correct" point of view, then what we end up with is a "circle-jerk" for insiders and the establishment.
I don't like the idea of creating a bureaucratic procedure for this page. Subpages, nominations, … augh, too complicated. How about we keep it simple instead and use Abd's proposal? However, if we do end up using a voting system, I recommend avoiding the adversarial "support" vs. "oppose" system and using a calm, anti-adversarial "support"-only system instead. Adding "oppose" votes to the mix would only result in censorship and the page becoming an exclusive club. I also disagree with the idea of disallowing "canvassing" per what Abd said in his proposal. This is an obscure page. This isn't AN or AN/U. Only a relatively tiny faction of the community knows about the page, and only a small number of them have this page on their watchlists. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Michaeldsuarez: Not subpages, but one subpage. The eligability process I proposed is really quite simple: Nominate a user name there and nominate, wait there until it gets an additional, e.g., two 'miss' statements from other users. Note, I am not proposing that you can oppose a nomination, as you really cannot argue against if someone else misses a user on Commons (assuming the addition is a sincere one). You can either agree that you miss, or abstain from adding your "miss". The subpage will not be a popularity contest as once you reach the threshold, the "missed user" is simply removed from the nomination page and added to the main page. In its current from it is a popularity contest, and I do not find that particularly appropriate. In addition, I am not stating anywhere that the users here may not be controversial past users, just because I added two, that probably were not controversial in any way. Nor do I object to adding users here, which I personally do not miss in any way, if it can be justified that it is more than a single other user, who "miss" the user, I do not happen to miss. Nor do I object to having blocked/banned users here or users from Wikipediocracy. I can think of more than one previously "problematic" user, whom I miss. You mentioned that almost all users you have added are users you have had encounters with. Well, fine, but is the important thing to consider not if they have had a notable role to play on Commons in terms of their contributions, either in the from of media or as the role they played in the Commons community? Some of the users you have added, has in my opinion had a notable role - for good or for bad depending on personal viewpoits, whereas for others I think their community role has been rather marginal.-- Slaunger (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plan A:
Post to the Commons page. Done, unless someone opposes by reverting. Done, unless someone restores. Done. 1-3 edits. Other occasional maintenance, ad hoc. One page to watch.
  • Plan B:
Post to nom page. Temporarily done, unless two other users support. Then post to Commons page and blank from nom page. Are nominations held open indef? Let's assume so, for simplicity. 1-5 edits. Other occasional maintenance, ad hoc. Two pages to watch.
  • A likely scenario: Sock puppet, later exposed, supports, creating 3 supports.
  • Plan A, remove support. If this takes the level shown in collapse below 2, listing may be removed or not, 1-2 more edits, easy to assess.
  • Plan B, identify support (it is not immediately visible), remove listing, restore blanked nomination not by sock (2 supports were there). 2 edits and complicated, history must be searched. Then possible additional edits to restore listing if another supports. 2 edits minimum.
  • Does Plan B create superior results, making it worth the extra effort and maintenance complexity? --Abd (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A: Too easy to game if two users team up to make a troll nom. Will lead to hostility.
      1. A noms U.
      2. B does not agree that "we, the community" misses U and reverts.
      3. A becomes upset: "How dare B state I do not muss U?".
      4. A asks friend C to restore.
      5. B who made a good faith revert feels humiliated => Controversy and drama.
    • B: Noms open indef. B is a solely positive process as you can only nominate or support a nomination. If all other users disagree in the nomination, they do not add their support, and the nominated users does not get on the main page => No controversy. The advantage that it makes sure there is a "we", and that it is not just a 1-2 users missing a single non-notable retired user. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sock nominations: No need to worry about that unless it becomes a problem. If it is a rarely ocurring problem the addtional maintenance is low. If it is a persistent problem add additional requirement that users shall have had k edits on Commons to nominate, e.g., k=50, cf. COM:FPC process. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that it's a good idea to create a process based on bad-faith hypotheticals, especially when there isn't really a real reason to "troll" this page. A detective looks for two things: opportunity and motive. You're focusing on opportunity without providing a motive. What would the motivation for trolling this page be? What is there to gain from trolling this page? You're reacting to a scenerio that's unlikely to happen. In addition, you more or less accused me of engaging in such a scenerio in your initial post to this page. Your mind is seeing a bad-faith scenerio in progress when it shouldn't. I don't believe that we should base our policies and processes on fear and assumptions of bad faith. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Michaeldsuarez: So, you have turned on the good old COM:AGF deflector shield ;-). Michael, of the 22 editors currently mentioned on this page, you have added 11 of them, which if my math is right is.... 50%, effectively making it into a "Commons:Michaeldsuarez and a few other users miss you" page.
Of the users that you have added, there are three with less than 50 edits on Commons, such as Tisane, a user, who is globally blocked for socking with 17 edits on Commons. What kind of contributions on Commons is it that you miss from this user? Several other users are blocked for socking and one is globally banned. For others, their contributions on Commons has solely been as critics. Now, I am not saying that critics cannot be missed, they can be healthy for pointing out weaknesses in processes, etc. And some blocked users may have been blocked for persistently hunting down double standards (e.g. Pieter Kuiper, whom you have added and I somehow miss). But the list of users you have added appears to be a rather biased selection. Now, if I were to follow the proposal of Abd, I could just go and delete some of the most peculiar entries, but I do not want to do that, because I AGF in believing that you actually miss them. I just do not feel convinced that the list of users gives a nuanced view of the kind of users who "we miss" as a community. You say that "you more or less accused me of engaging in such a scenerio in your initial post to this page". I have not accused you of such a thing (I wrote "perhaps" in my initial post). I would be fine with the current list of users, if the page was called "Commons:I miss you".
The lightweight nomination process I am proposing is a safeguard for making this into a "Commons:I miss you" page. And it is a process, which is unlikely to cause the same endless reverts and protections such as those that can be seen so far in the page history. This page should be a calm page build in respect of users the community miss. That is not assured by existing practise nor the "Plan A" process. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any protections of this page in the logs, nor reverts since Michael reformatted per Plan A. Plan A is existing practice, though not formally ratified yet. It's a calm page now. The last revert war was March 12-13:
  • Michael added Pennylap
  • Denniss reverted -- referring to the missed user trolling
  • Michael reverted, arguing
  • Denniss reverted
  • Denniss warned Michael for revert warring. Tsk, tsk, admin warns user to win revert war. Is this okay on Commons? But this is not AN/U and I'm just pointing out that lack of clear process caused users to fall into unnecessary conflict. I am not arguing that Denniss was wrong, nor Michael. And it appears that Michael has implemented structure that would prevent what he previously did. It would not prevent Denniss from doing what he did. Only if someone else then restored that name and added their name, then we might see a repeated removal by a single user as the revert warring that it would be. If multiple users get involved, well, over this nonsense? Maybe. I've seen worse. But it is unlikely, and hasn't happened.
  • Under Plan A, which Michael implemented with formatting, he would not have reverted Denniss's revert even once, he'd have waited for someone else to confirm. Done. No fuss. Denniss's revert was arguably uncivil, but under Plan A, nobody needs to give a reason for removal, Denniss probably thought it necessary. The edit summary could be neutral and factual, like "Remove, no second."
  • As it happened, Penyulap had returned March 7. Michael had obviously not checked, and Denniss's argument about trolling was completely unnecessary. Denniss had previously removed Michael's addition of Penyulap, December 13. The last removal before that was September 30. So even before the revert war of March 12-13, there was no disruption going on, just the first shot in the Penyulap War. Like most wars, damage is done with little, if any, benefit.
  • As to Michael's additions, arguing against them is, again, a useless waste of time. Michael has not added any user since setting up the new process, his additions do not appear excessive, and if Slaunger thinks any nomination is inappropriate, and if it has not been supported, just remove it. Don't argue that the user is bad or didn't do enough to be missed. One edit on Commons might be enough, in fact, for someone. So what? And if you don't want to remove it, the problem is? --Abd (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Memory footprint of missed users[edit]

Previously, I have proposed to implement a simple nomination process in order to establish a minimum threshold of community impact, the "missed user" have had. Some argue it becomes too complex. Another idea could be to look at the editors contributions. A particularly simple metric of community impact is the edit count. Admittedly, a very crude metric, especially on Commons, where the quality/value of contributions depends very much on what kind of edit it is. Doing a file upload of a bird you have spend hours in the field looking for is much bigger effort than categorizing a file page for instance. Still, I would say that in general, there is a significant correlation with the edit count and the community role/memory footprint of a user.

Edits of users currently on this page[edit]

I have compiled a list of the users currently on this page ranked according to their edit counts.

Although such a list should not be taken too seriously, I think most Commons users will agree that the memory footprint on Commons tends to increase the further we crawl up the list. Russavia topping the list with an extremely large edit count. Most users will agree that the memory footprint or community impact of Russavia has been very significant. Likewise, I think most will agree that the impact users at the very bottom of the list have had on the Commons community is very marginal. The question is, if all are worth mentioning on this page given their widely varying number of contributions?

  1. Russavia 791200
  2. High Contrast 198746
  3. Rocket000 100124
  4. Dcoetzee 76232
  5. Pieter Kuiper 61644
  6. Saibo 44136
  7. Rd232 38803
  8. ABF 20056
  9. Liamdavies 17967
  10. Mbz1 17398
  11. Sven Manguard 15659
  12. Bryan 12581
  13. Trycatch 10569
  14. Mike.lifeguard 9889
  15. Fir0002 4912
  16. BomBom 4322
  17. Malene 2528
  18. Ottava Rima 2278
  19. Delicious carbuncle 2065
  20. Katepanomegas 1666
  21. Coat of Many Colours 1187
  22. Scott 872
  23. Kasuga 157
  24. Jinnai 30
  25. Tisane 17

-- Slaunger (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit activity criteria for inclusion on sister pages[edit]

On some of the sister pages there are requirements regarding the minimum number of edits in order to be included.

A list of sister pages, which I have been able to machine translate, and which appear active. Various requirements about minimum inactivity period for inclusion is not mentioned here, only minimum accumulated edit thresholds for inclusion, if any.

cs:Wikipedie:Neaktivní wikipedisté
2000 edits, 100 created articles
de:Wikipedia:Vermisste Wikipedianer
None
el:Βικιπαίδεια:Χαμένοι Βικιπαιδιστές
None
en:Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians
Approx 1000 edits
it:Wikipedia:Wikipediani/Assenti da tempo
None
ja:Wikipedia:活動休止中のウィキペディアン一覧
None
pt:Wikipédia:Wikipedistas/Desaparecidos
None
ro:Wikipedia:Wikipediști dați dispăruți
None
tr:Vikipedi:Kayıp Vikipedistler
1000 edits

-- Slaunger (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Should we add a minimum number of edits requirement for the addition on this page?

Changed opinion after updating to correct numbers. I think 1000 edits would be a suitable limit, not 100-1000 as I originally proposed (based on wrong, too low numbers). -- Slaunger (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you have counted?? This seems not the real count, for example Rocket000 has over 100.000 edits not ~12.900!?
I used this edit counter. But I have to admit, I found some of the results, especially the one from Rocket000 surprising, as I would have expected far more edits. Is there a more reliable edit counter? If so, I will be happy to redo the stats. (Ahh, I think I have misinterpreted the use of the tool. I think what I am have written is the number of different project pages each user has edited). -- Slaunger (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this count could also be practical, I used this standard(?) counter. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  12:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be simpler if you used the edit count from Special:CentralAuth. Every namespace (files, categories) and deleted edits (edits that tagged images for deletion) should also be counted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michaeldsuarez Ah, yes, that would probably have been easier. I did not know that special page. Anyway I believe the numbers are at least approximately correct, at least sufficiently correct for discussing the topic. But feel free to check and revise the numbers against another counter. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. proposal by one, made by actually listing. If it sticks, fine. Proposal or signatures are not considered disruptive simply because of lack of seconds or N edits.
  2. Removed, fine. (Make sure that the user name is in edit summaries so the edit can be easily found.)
  3. A user may restore the listing and the original signature. It sticks, if over N edits. Removal is then disruptive (unless there is a defect, i.e., say, a necessary support by a banned user, such signatures may be removed). Do not debate if the page guideline is being followed.
  4. If under N edits, X users must sign to avoid non-disruptive removal. Removal of listings with less than N edits and less than X signatures is not disruptive. Do not debate or accuse. Just edit according to the guideline.
  5. Extra signatures are fine. This page, then, allows even one user to express a sentiment, by making an edit. If anyone objects for any reason or no reason, the listing may be removed if not meeting the guideline, but the expression stands in history. It's the thought that counts.
Use CentralAuth. Simple, available from contributions with one link, and will remain so. It includes deleted contributions, AFAIK.
The point here is to avoid a need to discuss listings, which could lead to endless and useless debate. That is why we would have more detailed specific process than is normal. The proposer of the edit limit earlier considered 3 supports adequate, so I suggest X = 3. --Abd (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hum - currently reflecting on this. I fully agree with the comment that The value of an user can't be determined by edit count alone. Indeed I have a feeling that those who have contributed constructively have left their legacies on Commons anyway and little more needs to be said (I don't really like these sort of pages for a number of reasons). I have varying edits counts on various wikis however quantity is certainly not a reflection of quality (in my case of that of others). --Herby talk thyme 16:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who on earth misses the trolls Ottava Rima (who I don't think is actually gone anyway) and Delicious Carbuncle? I think that for someone to be missed there needs to be a certain amount of activity - it's not worth adding every SPA - but I don't think there should be a hard limit. 17 edits is certainly too few, but many people can make hundreds if not thousands of edits without ever being truly "noticed" or a part of the community. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who exactly misses them is stated on the page, and the two examples that you've listed both contributed over two thousand revisions to Commons. Two thousand trollish revisions would be a remarkable feat, yet that's not the case: Most, if not all, of those revisions were made in good faith. You believe that they're "trolls" because that's how you see them in your mind. Others don't hold the same opinion and see them differently. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finally all agree, except of you (which initiate the whole discussion here), that should be a limit: so we should at minimum remove Jinnai and Tisane now (IMHO it is an absolute joke to listen this users here. As I said, this is not Wikipedia.) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  13:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that all this pushing for rules, restrictions, and voting defeats the intended "not many [rules]" spirit of the page. Can't you see that this drive for restrictions goes against the original vision of the page's authors? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Michaeldsuarez: The pushing for rules appears, when the system does not work without. I agree as few rules as possible. The page is called 'Commons:We miss you', not Commons:I miss you, and I think the sentiment expressed by a majority of users participating here in this discussion is that the we is missing for some of the mentioned users. I have now removed the two users with 17 and 30 edits here, as it is clear for anyone else but you, that such a low participation is certainly below any reasonable noise threshold for inclusion on this pag. I do not mind if we can avoid having a rule of at least x edits as long as the page is not abused to add clearly non-notable editors (on Commons). Nor do I mind re-adding the now removed users, if it can be verified that there is a "we" missing these users contributions on Commons. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. I believe in anarchy and free-for-all's. Anarchy can work. In fact, I believe anarchy had served this page well for years. Unfortunately, anarchy scares certain people ("OMG! You're adding trolls to the list. The anarchy must end!"), and fear drives people into making demanding rules that harm or disenfranchise others (usually minorities). I started editing this page even before it was a week old. The page was functioning pretty well, since anyone and everyone were permitted to do as they pleased. In my opinion, the problems occurred when people started labeling others as trolls and acted contrary to the principles of anarchy by attempting to remove entries. Anarchy serves anyone and everyone. The creation of rules and restrictions limits the amount of people that this page serves. I believe that it's in everyone's interest to maximize the amount of people this page and all of Commons' policies serve, and anarchy provides the ultimate maximization. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Michael, this is a disagreement without substance. Slaunger removed two listings that only had one support. It seems he wanted to have some reason for this, i.e., too few edits. That's his business and problem, not ours. The removal was already allowed under the simple rule established and actioned. Anyone may propose, anyone may remove a listing with only a single support. No "reason" is necessary. If anyone else wants to restore one of those, by undoing the removal and adding their own signature, this is just ordinary wiki process. It's now two supports, so the position has shifted. It's not a bald revert. It's purpose and function is obvious, so no "reason" is necessary. I appreciate your political position on anarchy, Michael, but do understand that the position doesn't necessarily enjoy consensus. In fact, sometimes anarchists have zero respect for consensus, and hence get themselves tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. I wonder, if there were a rule prohibiting that response to active anarchists, would the anarchists demand that the rule be enforced?
The old removal of "trolls" was uncivil, and my hope is that Commons starts to recognize the damage caused by ignoring incivility. I predict it will, and will start to create and protect a civil environment.
Slaunger's overall reason, that "we" has not been established, was valid. The effort to specify some standard other than the existence of a "we," however, has not succeeded in finding consensus. It should be obvious: we might miss someone with even one edit. So the attempt in the poll is to regulate an emotion, and the expression of the same, to require that emotions be reasonable in some way. Yes, people try to do that, control how others feel and what they write. It doesn't work. "We" would simply work around it. It's easy to stop one user. It starts getting difficult with two. Two can beat one at revert warring, every time. So then, would a third intervene? And why in the world set it up that this gets murky? Just for a page that expresses a sentiment? --Abd (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, missing somebody who isn't really gone is odd, it would be better to say so on the user talk page of a project where the not really gone user is still active. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps having "we" as a part of title is the problem. enwiki entitled their page simply as "Missing Wikipedians". I can understand why the author of this wanted it to be called "We miss you" (to make the title sound more pleasant and meaningful), yet it has resulted in arguing and edit wars. Perhaps the page should be re-entitled as "Missing Commons contributors and those who miss you" or "You are missed". With that title, the page be clearly be about and serving those missing ("you") the missing and not about or serving "we" who remain and bicker over "you". Such a title would mean less arguing, less conflict. If we can't agree on what "we" is, then perhaps "we" should be avoided altogether. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it's possible that a name change would be acceptable, I've seen no recent edit warring over the page. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I like "We miss you" because it's personal, and the personal is often missing on Commons. So far, nobody has removed a listing with more than one user agreeing to it, since you created the new structure with identified missing users. Yes, there is a theoretical conflict here. Two listings were removed with a Reason, and you disagree with the Reason. I prefer to simply interpret that as the individual's reason for removal. It's dicta. So what? We now have many more listings that might be controversial in some way, but nobody is removing them; most of them have more than one supporter listed.
So maybe people are simply being smart. We don't need to fight over whether or not Mr. Horrible Troll is listed. Let's assume good faith, and that the revert warring is over. Michael, you did a good thing, you set up a process that allowed this page to become functional, it's clearly working, lots of users are adding listings and adding supports.
The page is becoming pure cooperation -- and tolerance. So what if someone misses User I Didn't Like? (Someone does!) We need places like this on Commons. Little by little, we go far. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michaeldsuarez and Abd. I would rather avoid any kind of metric 'rule' as, e.g., discussed above, if this page can evolve such that it presents a nuanced view of who we miss on Commons. I removed the two users, not because I have anything personal against them, but because it is my perception from reading the comments from other users above, that no-one else but you could really begin to take this serious unless the most obviously non-notable users on Commons were removed for the time being. The way things are progressing right now looks healthy for me. Nuances are being brought in by different users chiming in, and I feel that already now it is more representative of the community 'feels' from my experience of participating here since 2007. And if it continues the way it does now, I do not think any such rule for inclusion is needed. I also agree with what Abd has stated that if other regular users here want to add the now removed users, despite there extremely low number of edits on the project, I will have no objections to their inclusion as, then there is a 'we'. Regarding renaming; yes that would be an idea, and something along the line of the WP:EN title would also be fine with me. However, I kind of like the current page title. It is sympathetic and kind and shows respect for the users listed. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Slaunger. The point is that no "reason" is needed to remove a user with only one support. But there was nothing wrong with your reason. I'll tell you what this process is starting to feel like, to me: like genuine consensus. It's like this. Nobody loses. With difficult issues, genuine consensus can be elusive, or, more accurately, work. But it's worth it because it is self-enforcing. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification to 'missed' users[edit]

One aspect about the current process, I still feel a bit uneasy about is the 'popularity contest' inherent in the missedby field of the template. Being listed as missed by only one is kind of embarassing, isn't it? I think that retired/long term inactive users should be informed about their appearance on this page on their talk page; for at least two reasons: 1. Such that they can remove themselves, if they become active. 2. Such that they can opt-out from being listed here, if they feel it is more an embarrassment, than an honor to be listed here. For some, who wants absolutely nothing more to do with commons, it could cause personal distress, even to be listed here. I can think of at least one user currently mentioned, who may feel personally distressed by being mentioned here. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to notify users that I add for now on. Also, if you believe that an entry is causing discomfort to an individual listed, it would probably be best if you weren't sky about it. This page is for them, so if something must be removed for their sake, then it might be best if you simply remove it with an edit summary along the lines of "I know this person. I don't believe that he or she would be comfortable being listed here." If you're reverted, then we can discuss it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Michaeldsuarez. I think that is a good idea, and I will also do that for the users I have added. Coming to think about it; such messages could serve a third purpose (at least for those who are not blocked/banned); they are reminded that other users think kindly of them and it could perhaps trigger some of them to return. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt to the person, who might feel distress by being listed here, I am unsure about it, but will try to make contact via private channels, if possible. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is thinking about the feelings of the missing user, which is great. Practicing this here, maybe we can take it into the rest of the wiki, and will lose fewer users. I would not suggest getting far into the idea of this page encouraging users to return; the reason why is that some of us may be happier that User X is gone! However, if we can establish some level of tolerance for diversity here, maybe it can spread, and a user who was a PITA before, in a saner environment, might be easier to get along with. --Abd (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion - absent time[edit]

I strongly propose there a value of absent time of minimum of one week or higher! As we can see for example at INeverCry (no matter how highly valued this person is), as he was added after only one day, is IMHO senseless and out of scope of the meaning of this page!? Give the users time (this list could also be have a negative definitive character). What do you mean? PS: I've created COM:Missed user ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a former entry[edit]

I no longer support or condone the act of missing Tisane. After coming into possession of copies of court documents, my opinion of him has changed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missed[edit]

Hi, I've removed the collapse part from Template:Missed as it looked like the listed people were missed by no one,
Hope no one minds, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 19:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my internet was slow because it wasn't collapsing. I still prefer having the collapse part though, since the current one looks large to me. pandakekok9 03:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi pandakekok9, Lol I can just imagine you sitting there waiting for it to collapse lol, Wilfredor did change things slightly soon after so that might affect it ?, Dunno but on my laptop there doesn't seem to be any difference, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:Seedfeeder[edit]

Can we add Seedfeeder (talk · contribs)? His work here was pivotal for the entire project. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. There's no need to ask permission when you miss someone. :) pandakekok9 03:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:We_miss_you&oldid=410038654"