Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention | Editor of the Week

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John from Idegon (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 3 February 2015 (→{{noping|I dream of horses}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 9 years ago by John from Idegon in topic Current nominations
Learn more about this page




Archives (Index)
This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the nominations talk page. To nominate someone for Editor of the Week, visit the Editor of the Week nominations page. This page hosts discussions about the nominated editor while waiting for a second to the nomination. Please review the Editor of the Week criteria and additional guidelines before commenting. Once an editor has been nominated, a minimum two week period begins in order to engender a second which is a necessary preliminary required to validate the nomination.


Example:

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Editor

Current nominations

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Howicus

Mandruss

Cowlibob

  • Seconded:

I dream of horses

HOLD

Latest comment: 9 years ago49 comments20 people in discussion

Ijon or Asaf (WMF)

Thanks Buster7, but why I got the ping? Jim Carter 03:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Jim, you were the second.I should have also pinged the nominator @Titodutta: which I am doing now. The only previous restriction in place was administrators. They get rewarded and are held in good esteem by the majority of working editors. Length of service on Wikipedia is not really an issue unless the editor is one of those that has been working in obscurity and only known by the editors that work along side. It's not my call but I see Kudpung's point. Let's put him on hold and see what other editors have to say before a decision is made. Buster Seven Talk 06:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • This is not RfA where the horrible tradition still lingers where it is acceptable to be quite vociferously negative about candidates so I cannot and will not go into detail here in fairness to some of the work that Asaf does (most of it is remunerated and does not enter the equation). In any case, my opinion, FWIW, is based on personal acquaintance and canot be supported by diffs. Just to prove however, that in exceptional circumstances I might nevertheless accept a nomination for a staff member, such as for comparison Moonriddengirl, who would be more than worthy of a nomination - just as an example of course. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I am impartial as to whether or not this editor receives the award. And I think I understand that there may be concerns. I seem to remember that the restriction as to Admins receiving the award stemmed from an admin being nominated back a year and a half ago, a discussion ensuing, and the decision was made that admins would not be accepted from that point onward. The admin restriction was then added to the general "rules". Since then a few have been nominated and the restriction was affirmed to the nominator. So...let it be known...that if we add "employees" to the restricted list now for this nomination, a future nomination for someone like the suggested Moonriddengirl, while worthy, could not be excepted. I am just one of nine designated coordinators for this project so this is just my evaluation. Buster Seven Talk 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi, Buster asked me to comment here. I can't see a reason to exclude Foundation staffers, so long as the award is for their work as editors. I can't comment on the nomination otherwise, as I'm not familiar with the editor, but place of employment would seem to me largely irrelevant. The only argument I can see in favour of not doing it would be that the awards are intended to thank editors who might otherwise receive little feedback for their work, and this would not extend to staffers, who are paid for their involvement, albeit not for their editing. So if it were up to me, I wouldn't exclude staffers, but I would prefer to use the page to reach out to editors who might otherwise not realize that they are valued. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I see both sides to this; in the past, when there have been "close calls" such as this one, we have found compromise by awarding the editor a WER barnstar. Might that be an appropriate course of action here? Go Phightins! 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • It seems to me that in order to make a fair decision about this, we need to consider a few things. First, is it possible to tell which edits a WMF employee makes as a volunteer and which he/she has been paid to make? If so, do we want to consider only volunteer edits awardworthy? If not, should an award be given for edits which may have been directed by someone else? Since Kudpung says that no diffs are available to demonstrate his opinion, this likely means that the problem is not about edits the the English Wikipedia. In a theoretical situation, if an editor has made excellent contributions to EW, but has had disagreements with editors, or has made problematic edits somewhere, are the extraneous problems taken into account, or only the actual edits to the encyclopedia?—Anne Delong (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Being a perfect Wikipedians has never been a prerequisite for EotW. Past Editors of the Week have not always been saints. While vetting during the seconding process, some pimples will surface. But I don't recall an single editor that was denied the nominators (and seconders) praise. Buster Seven Talk 02:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
As an example, when considering nominating or supporting an editor for adminship I try to get a picture of the person as a whole and not just base my decision on on the mechanics of editing data. To have had the opportunity to know that person personally is a plus albeit one denied to the majority of users who do not attend meetings and conferences or work extensively offline. Too much emphasis, although relevant, is being place on my opionion towards making awards to paid staff. My major concerns are about making an EoW award to anyone who has caused an editor to abandon a project they have worked hard for and perhaps even travelled the world at their own expense for Wikipedia. That is not within the spirit of editor retention. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Only Buster7 knows what he is doing. I read both his original comment (@Jim) and revised comment. Asaf/Ijon is a Wikipedian for 10 years and a WMF employee for just 3 and a half years. What are we waiting for? He is a community member first (with a +7 years experience) and a WMF employee later. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Kudpung, I don't know this editor at all, so I can neither agree or disagree about this particular case. However, I would like to point out that in general judging someone for adminship should require considering a wider variety of characteristics than for an Editor of the Week award, which is usually given to someone who has been working hard and making good contributions to the encyclopedia in the recent past. Your example may not be quite on point for this reason. However, after reading your post above I am unclear about whether you still would like to see the guidelines changed so that WMF employees are ineligible, or whether you are only opposing giving the award to this particular employee. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Not commenting on the particular editor in question, but on WMF employees in general, I think it is reasonable to be able to award EOTW to an editor who is also employed by WMF as long as the award is based on their non-paid work here and not their paid work with the foundation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have said what I need to on WMF employees in general, the rest is up to a consensus if you wish to change anything. My Opposition to this nomination is based on the person and not on the salaried post they hold. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
With all due respect, I don't understand the basis of your objection to this person. Perhaps I've missed it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Break

First, lets all be patient. We have plenty of time to make a decision or formulate a secondary course of action. There are three editors in the accepted queue in front of Ijon so we need not rush to judgment. Even if accepted were the decision right now, the Eddy would not be awarded for a month. There is a discussion at my talk page which I have yet to read. Lets all take a break. Buster Seven Talk 07:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • One possible solution: Titodutta does a rewrite of his nomination mentioning that "I am talking about Ijon's role to empower Indian En WP community" and other specific editorial achievements and qualities. He might read some of the many dozens of previous nominations to get an idea of what I mean. Buster Seven Talk
  • In the spirit of WP editorship I have begun a rewrite of the nomination. If Tito can point me to specific instances of Ijon's worthiness,I can mention them, and we should be able to get passed any doubt editors might have as to the validity of awarding Editor Ijon an "Eddy". Buster Seven Talk 14:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
It applies directly to what they stated it applies to, however I for one am tired of the admin restriction.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Decline

Uh, hello. I was not aware of this (of course) and I would like to decline the proposed recognition. I don't feel I do enough on ENWP in this (my volunteer) account to warrant any particular recognition; I mostly gnome. My broader work in the movement, as both volunteer and WMF employee, also does not need any further recognition (and it has gotten some, elsewhere), and I am amply motivated to continue both my work and my volunteer activities. :)

For the record, I would also note that some of Tito's description is incorrect: I do not, in fact, travel every month, and while I do attend a number of events and provide mentorship and give talks, that is not the subtance of my role.

I thank Tito for the well-intended nomination, and his appreciation of my work is very rewarding in itself. Ijon (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is unusual to see an editor decline this award before it is even given. I am not very happy about how this transpired, especially after my own encounter with the objecting editor recently, but I feel it is your right to decline and feel it should be respected.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I do not assume it would have been awarded; perhaps 'decline' is not the best verb to use. But I am encouraging the community to stop considering this particular nomination. Thanks. Ijon (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) There is a nomination and a second. That alone would have awarded you the "Eddie". The objection was not supported and the precedence for such objection is to weigh such evidence presented in discussion and allow the consensus to prevail as usual. The consensus is on the side of awarding the nomination. I may well be making assumptions as well...but was also ready to just place the award on your page as one of the originating editors of the project. Hey...it ain't much but its pretty. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
The intended awardees request is noted and the nomination will be put on hold. On another issue that was just raised: I would be quite unhappy if other members of WER started handing out the Eddy. Things have gone smoothly for most of two years. There is a set way of doing things and it is working. Over a hundred editor have been awarded. Buster7 (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Over-all unhappy you deserve it Sir. As I follow this page, I learned about my own nomination just after it was posted. We have to assess that "do you really deserve this award?" EotW is our (and mainly Buster's department). I strongly admire your attitude and behaviour here. Your work towards the Indian community has been superb so far. That's all? --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Editor retention and the "Eddy" award

I am very confused by the main page of EOTW with it still maintaining that:

"Editor of the Week is a recognition award for unsung heroes: editors who do excellent work in improving Wikipedia while typically going unnoticed. A recipient of Editor of the Week ideally has one or more of the following characteristics: Writes or significantly expands articles on a regular basis.

Cleans up articles by, for example, adding sources, expanding citations with the necessary information, aligning prose with the manual of style, or improving the quality of the prose through copy-editing (such as making the text more concise and removing redundant wording). Serves as notable voice of reason in discussions with other editors. Performs behind-the-scenes work, not normally seen by the general community.

While there are many well-known editors who meet these criteria, the intent is to recognize someone less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown. As admins typically have already been recognized for their work, please limit your nominations to non-admins. ."

This is not actually true. We changed that many months ago when Eric Corbett (Pinging only to make them aware of the discussion and use of their name) was nominated and awarded the "Eddy". During Eric's nomination I objected based on the basic principles of this statement and also for the reasons discussed that eventually led to the creation of "Editor of the Week". Eric actually deserved the award for many of the main reasons the award is given but....it stretched the limits of our original intent. It was decided that, from Eric's nomination forward, that nominating any editor, unknown or know, new or old, little content to prolific, could be nominated and that was closer to the spirit of WER anyway. Older editors are just as easily dissuaded as new ones and just as possible to lose. So we did decide that EOTW guidelines should be changed but have yet to actually make that change to our main page. Knowing that an editor with such massive content creation and so well known (even by the objecting editor above) is eligible for EOTW, I too am confused by the objection and concerns. Having said all of that, when we changed the guidelines, we did so during a nomination when it would obviously be making a rather big change to EOTW. In this particular case, the guidelines not being updated might have had a small amount to do with Kudpung's view of this not being an appropriate nomination, but he does state outright that their opinion is based on the actual editor nominated. This I can understand but again, this happened with Eric as well. In either case we would simply discuss the nomination and the opinion but move on with the nomination if there is no support for the change or opposition. That seems to be the case here. As an employee of the foundation, there does not seem to be opposition to an "Eddy" being given...for their own work...not for their paid work. As long as the nomination is clearly for their own, independent work on Wikipedia, I see no reason not to allow this nomination to move forward. Support and officially "Fourthed".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Mark, for your eloquence and for your memory. Buster7 (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Personally I don't understand why admins are excluded but paid staff are expressly allowed to be considered; I also do not see why edors who are notorious for incivility and PA should be considered. I think the personality of the editor (as I mentioned elections for admins as an example above) should be taken into consideration. EoW seems a bit lop sided to me. But a lot of things are lop sided, even the way some editors are allowed to behave at WT:WER which is a project originally intended to retain editors. On even more reflection, I don't see what the EoW project has to do with retaining editors or WER - perhaps it should be considering finding a new home. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Duly noted. Buster7 (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Kudpung. Thank you for sharing those thoughts; the decision to present the award to Eric was widely discussed, and consensus deemed that we should move forward to recognize his positive contributions, regardless of anything else. If you are looking for evidence of how this award retains and encourages editors, check out the recipient response page, which shows how much this award means to the unsung heroes who receive it. Four favorites:
  • Sagaciousphil: "I'm absolutely speechless and believe me, that doesn't happen often! I don't know what to say, except 'Thank you' - you have just made a truly horrendous day become bright.......now I'll have to go and find a box of tissues because I think I'm going to cry (in the nicest way possible). Thank you so much."
  • Wetman: "Well, I've laughed out loud editing at Wikipedia (thank you especially Giano), and I've paced up and down furiously at Wikipedia (though not lately) but this is the first time I've teared up..."
  • Mattlore: "Wow, thank you guys, and especially to User:Mkativerata for the very kind nomination. I will definitely have to display this on my user page alongside my barnstar. Like Mkativerata, I didn't know this award and project existed and it is nice to receive something positive instead of being involved in wearying debates on talk pages."
  • Maile66: "WikiGnoming is one of the most satisfying tasks on Wikipedia, IMO. I feel humbled, considering User:Matty.007 is one of those "endangered species" of good editors who should be retained, and is currently undecided on whether to stay or go. But kudos to this project. We need more and more efforts to retain editors. Thanks for this acknowledgement."
Certainly, some recipients are more deserving than others, but at all costs, we seek to avoid this becoming contentious, so even in the worst case scenario where a sub-optimal editor receives the award, we thank them for a positive aspect of their work, and encourage them to continue in that endeavor. The restriction on administrators comes from Dennis, I believe, who posited that generally, administrators receive sufficient recognition for their work. Go Phightins! 03:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I might add, Kudpung that the third recipient of this award, Coal town guy, was just the subject of a major interview by the foundation, widely circulated via social media. Even tho I am the one that nominated him here, Facebook was how I found out about that. His 2600+ articles created, and at least one Feature level achievement, speak loudly for the success of this program. I was on a Wikibreak when Eric got his, so I will not speak to that at all, but overall I think this program is a major positive for the project and is beginning to generate positive publicity for Wikipedia outside the community, just as the Teahouse project does. John from Idegon (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I might add, John, Go Phightins! ⋅that I did a lot for WER - and even dragged one of its EoW awardees kicking and screaming to RfA which she actually skipped through as easily as a lamb in a field of buttercups. Dennis probably didn't think at the time of making his exclusions just how much flak and crap admins have to take for just doing their job and getting branded as child haters by the peanut gallery (who amongst other try to gain kudos for their clueless meddling in various noticeboards and projects). In fact admins hardly ever get any recognition at all for their work. Not all of them are thick skinned sexagenarians like me who are not afraid to work in the front line, but they do a lot of excellent work in the background without ever getting noticed - particularly for their GA and FA work. Excluding them but including paid staff is more than just a bit lopsided. Perhaps it's time for all those who criticise admins to run for adminship themselves. Some may well pass - and I might even nominate a few more. That's all I have to say now because I have left the WER project having been ekeled out by recent events. I may return from time to time but it will only be to highlight aspects of the project that should be improved, or to warn or block the occasional editor for gross incivility or PA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Kudpung, in my opinion you are one of those sanctimonious editors that WP is better without. Eric Corbett 02:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to get in the middle of a blood feud, and will make a (hopefully final) note that the original intention was to award the least among us, those that don't have advanced bit or other privilege, I just didn't codify it except to exclude admin. After all, the goal is "retention", not just pats on the back. To have allowed admin at that time would have been foolish and made it look like it was a bunch of admin and admin wannabes rewarding their fellow buddies. That is why I specifically excluded admin. As for office staff and such, there is a very good argument to be made to exclude them in the future. I have no fixed opinion on it, and would be willing to hear both sides, personally. For TODAY, however, it is allowed. This is what I mean by accepting the status quo, then politely and gently seeking consensus to modify the guidelines. There is no reason it should be anything but civil. I had already said, have a 30 day RFC like discussion on the main talk page, not here. I've already dropped that hint. Then we should ALL live with the result, whatever it is. WER members aren't saints, but we should be expected to live by the most basic rules, civility and consensus, when taking care of our own house. Dennis - 2¢ 02:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dennis, the restriction on admins came about after Worm That Turned was nominated, and the participants in Editor of the Week were discussing if he fit the criteria of someone who hadn't already been recognized for their contributions. Buster7 subsequently suggested that admins be exempted from receiving Editor of the Week, thereby avoiding having to make a subjective judgment on whether or not Worm That Turned was sufficiently recognized already. (You weren't involved in that particular discussion thread.) isaacl (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Excluding them was always in line with my idea, but I take you at your word that I wasn't in that particular discussion. The whole idea was to recognize the gnomes and others, so excluding admin only makes sense. Dennis - 2¢ 15:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm still waiting to be nominated for the Eddy :( GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your good day will come GoodDay. Here's a Thought: you would be the first to self-nominate. JK. . Buster Seven Talk 05:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Another thing, GoodDay. A very important (and enjoyable for all involved) part of the EotW package is the surprise factor. But...here you are in the workshop. If you promise to close your eyes for the next two weeks or so or remove this page from your watchlist, maybe, just maybe, you will be rewarded with an Eddy. . Buster Seven Talk 06:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Or you could just pretend that you don't notice the nomination and forgo the surprise. It probably wouldn't be the first time. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Or....when awarded you could pretend to be surprised, as others have had to do. . Buster Seven Talk 13:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

An opinion

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Whether or not Foundation members should be illegible or not is a discussion (a one month local RFC like discussion) that belongs on the main talk page, not here. At this time, it is allowed. As for getting or not getting EotW, I don't think we have a hard rule, but rough consensus should be sufficient. Making more rules for that seems foolish.

The reason there isn't a hard rule on qualification is because none of us are saints. It isn't a "good behavior award". Some will be controversial, most won't. Very few things get me to log back on right now, but the EotW is one of them. It has helped us find at least 3 admin (something you should appreciate Kudpung) and the overall benefit far outweighs any disagreement.

The primary goal is to recognize the least among us, the quiet, disenfranchised or simply overlooked editors. It is a "thank you" to someone who needs it and deserves it, at least in the opinion of someone, and verified by a couple of others.

What EotW is NOT is a system wide consensus based system or an RFA like vote. It isn't a judgement of anyone's worth. It isn't a claim of perfection or endorsement of anyone's ideas. The best analog I can think of is a reasonably vetted barnstar, one with some meaning because it starts with one editor, and has been reviewed by others. A group barnstar, so to speak. It is an important function, more important than first impression might give.

Yes, it is nice for the person that receives it, but again, 3 admin have come from the program, so it also shines a light on a group of people that have potential to help even more. Not all, but enough. It gets other editors involved in looking for good editors, likely throwing a barnstar or two in the process. It puts eyes on the most overlooked people here, gnomes, even if a large minority of those nominated aren't really gnomes. It offers rewards for those who participate that are even greater than those that receive the award. It also puts the idea of retaining editors, of rewarding quiet editors, into the minds of more than WER members. It is part (and the most visible part at WER) of what plants the seeds that "retention" is just as important as "attracting" new members.

So far, the benefits have blown away any downside, by any measure. Why it works is because we are not pedantic and have focused mainly on the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats, so raising the spirits of ANYONE here is a good thing for all of us. As long as we are doing that, then we are consistent with the original goals of the program, as I originally envisioned it, and as it was implemented by Buster and others. It will never be perfect. Learn to accept that. Dennis - 2¢ 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Dennis Brown: Thank you very much for your note. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/Nominations&oldid=645400834"