Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Archive 1

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

Move to a subpage of WER

There is enough support to work on it over there rather than in user namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but...only if GP agrees, as this is his page at the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved. Go Phightins! 02:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Award or recognition

I think we shouldn't call it an "award". Better it be referred to simply as recognition.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Go Phightins! 02:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think there should be a banner for the honoree to display on their user and user talk pages during their time as editor of the week. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but again someone other than me would have to create it...my template skills are virtually non-existent. Go Phightins! 02:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me give The WOtW Recognition Banner it a shot over the end of the year. I'll have a few choices to select from. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Also I think this may be too confining and confusing:
    • A prolific content contributor.
    • A constant voice of reason in discussions.
    • Someone who works quietly in behind-the-scenes areas of Wikipedia.

I suggest this instead:

    • Unique or outstanding content contribution.
    • Notable voice of reason in discussion.
    • Behind-the-scene work, not normally seen by the general community.

--Amadscientist (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Go Phightins! 02:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

When referring to "editor of the week" as a noun, I think using the term "award" is simpler and clearer ("editor of the week award"). I agree that in any description of the award, making use of recognize/recognition/selected/recipient rather than win/awarded/winner is desirable to put more emphasis on being recognized for good work, and less on comparing the recipient to others. isaacl (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Name of award

Similar to Dennis, I prefer "editor" rather than "wikipedian". I know what an editor does, but am not sure what the role of "wikipedian" is supposed to denote: is it someone experienced in the ways of Wikipedia, is it a veteran editor, is it someone who knows the key participants on Wikipedia, or is it something else? There is something a bit cliquish about the term that I'm not comfortable with. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As a bonus, the term 'Editor' becomes uplifted from the realm of 'User' which always nmade me think of drug user. I've always referred to fellow wikipedians as Editor. (BTW, Editor MF didn't like me to do it. Not sure why. ```Buster Seven Talk
Are we agreed to use Editor as our KeyWord rather than Wikipedian.? Or should we have more discussion? ```Buster Seven Talk 04:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the consensus seems to be editor, so if there's no objection I will move this page to Wikipedia:Editor retention/Editor of the week proposal. Is there any objection? Go Phightins! 04:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RANT:... We should do everything possible to make that an editors first experience is a good, fertile, enjoyable one. POINT: Every New Editor should be specifically, and with a determinite effort, be referred to as EDITOR not user or newbie or n00b or whatever. They are editors at their first "Save". WE (Wikipedia Editors) need to change the conversation, the 'meme', that is prevelant about New Editors. We need to respect them right from the start as equals. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Deadline

Should we give ourselves a deadline as to when we can present a finished product to the members of WER? Jan 15, let's say? Or should we wait for more clerks? ```Buster Seven Talk 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say a good target would be the 15th...I think there's definitely enough interest to get this off the ground. Go Phightins! 04:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone who is better at code than I maybe copy the Maitre d' calendar thingie over here somewhere so we can start signing up clerks as we move the proposal forward? 1/15 is just a little over 3 weeks away! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's just make sure that idea has support before someone goes to the trouble...Go Phightins! 04:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It can be the 30th. But we do need a deadline. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Buster, I think the 15th is a good deadline, I was talking to Gtwfan52 saying to hold off copying over the calendar until there's consensus to abide by that facet of the proposal. Go Phightins! 04:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

How many nominees per week

Alot of topics will come up...each requiring its own thread. I'm just isolating this one to keep the discussion in one place for awhile. ```Buster Seven Talk

I think one, unless the scenario which I mentioned above occurs. (FYI-that scenario was that if multiple editors had been teaming up on something, like a GA, then they could be co-Wikipedians of the Week or Editors of the Week or whatever we've decided to call this). Go Phightins! 04:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Like last years TIME's "Person of the Year" was the Occupy Movement!!! ```Buster Seven Talk 04:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe it should be flexible, to match the incoming rate of accepted nominations, so all work above a certain standard would be a candidate to be recognized, rather than only work done by the top 52 editors. isaacl (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying for every x nominations, there should be y people recognized? Go Phightins! 04:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If X nominations are accepted as meeting the desired standard of work being recognized, then I believe all of the accepted nominees should be recognized. If all X nominees have done worthy work, why artificially limit the number of recipients, which will require comparisons and judgment calls to be argued over (e.g. is person Y's article maintenance as worthy as person Z's citation adding?). In a corporate setting, often a monthly director-level award will be limited due to the financial award associated with it, but where the only reward involves photons being displayed in a specific pattern, why not spend them? isaacl (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
My concern with that is that if we award too many of these, then it will become less meaningful to those who receive them. By awarding just one per week, an editor can feel a little pride for being the Wikipedian recognized by his peers for that entire week. If 15 people get the award in a week, it becomes less meaningful and just becomes like any other barnstar. Go Phightins! 05:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand this concern; it's a tricky balance to strike. I don't think there will be 15 accepted nominations per week, but there might be more than one, particularly initially. I think after a few months of accepting nominations, the incoming rate should stabilize, and then a judgment can be made if there is a backlog that should be cleared by increasing the number of awards for a bit, and if the standards should be tightened up to accept fewer nominations. I suggest the standards should be something like "person A has been doing a great job at tasks X, Y, and Z for N months" or "person B did an outstanding job with influential task J", so it's a bit more than a thank you barnstar, but doesn't require you to be one of the Wikipedia elite. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am literally dozing off at the computer, so let me get a few hours of sleep, and then I'll see if I can type a coherent thought . Go Phightins! 05:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If we take away the week restriction, we can do as many or as few as we deem necessary. 20 in a year...or 100. Isaaci makes a good point that the intentioon of this is to acknowledge positive efforts of editors and in so doing we increase editor retention. We want to acknowledge in order to retain ```Buster Seven Talk 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Then this simply becomes a team of a few that gives out a few barnstars. When Dennis originally proposed this, he said that "I had originally thought of a daily thing, but don't think we have the resources to put into that. But a weekly award, basically to highlight someone who might otherwise fall under the radar." To do this effectively, I don't think we want to be throwing out these barnstars or awards or whatever we're awarding like candy. The person who receives the award should be considered The Editor of the Week. That's the whole point, at least that's what I thought. Go Phightins! 05:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I dont disagree. I just see both sides as having merit. "Week" is an arbitrary time set. The fact that there are 52 in a year creates a larger arbitrary time set. We could easily set this up to give an award every four days. why not? How meaningful the award is will be judged more on who receives them then how often they are handed out. More than 52 editors a year fall under the radar```Buster Seven Talk 05:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, week is arbitrary. But if we're calling this editor of the week, I think it's only natural to recognize someone every week...we're not calling it "editor of the five days" are we? Go Phightins! 15:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The title serves the award: if there is enough interest and support to have recipients named more often, it could be given a name such as "Today's featured editor" (where "today" just means the editor being featured right now, similar to Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement). But I think starting with a weekly award is ambitious enough for now. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, let's start with one/week at least until we figure out how much lasting interest there is in this project. We don't want to get in over our heads. I'm going to create an "editors interested" section on the main page of this to see if there are people just watching who still are interested. Go Phightins! 16:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
We should keep in mind that the people clerking this might get burned out if we make it too proficient. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think there should be a standard for accepting nominations such that each recipient has done something that the casual reader will look at and say, yes, that is something worth recognizing. If the standard is too high, I don't think we will catch those editors who might otherwise fall beneath the radar. If a lot of time has to be spent sifting through those meeting the standard, but have to be dropped due to a fixed limit on the number of awards, then I think the overhead isn't worth it. isaacl (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with one a week and low overhead. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
At least for starters, I agree with Buster. Logistically, how do we want to decide who gets it in a given week if there are multiple nominees? Go Phightins! 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I suggest chronological order: which ever accepted nomination comes in first is recognized first, with the other accepted nominations going into a queue for later weeks. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Would we need some type of STOP sign, rejecting nominations if the queue gets too long and unmanageable?? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
If the queue gets too long, I think that's where having clerks comes into play...they're just going to have to make a selection based on how many supports someone has and based on the rationale by the nominator. I don't think we ever want to cut off nominations. Go Phightins! 15:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I've already given my opinion on what to when the queue becomes lengthy; let's see what others have to say on the subject. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Go Phightins! 15:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars/Banners/Awards Under Construction

  • Feel free to add your efforts or suggestions or comments.

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to use a bright color. We want to give notice to the editor AND we also want visitors to their page to notice that they have been "rewarded". We don't get paid. Thanks and acknowledgement from fellow editors is golden. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't suggest the award be signed by an editor. More like ""WER/Editor of the Week Project"" or whatever is decided. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Terrific. We could just say, "on behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project, Go Phightins! 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)" or we could have all of the clerks for that week sign it. Go Phightins! 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done but still open to more suggestions and Award prototypes. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Ew. Too striking to the eye. What about switching yellow and red? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Not bad. Eye-catching. How about Blue or Red's opposite---green. We want it to "pop"....to be noticed. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I like the first one better than the second, but would be open to other colors. Go Phightins! 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

These are two more combinations I came up with...by the way continuing is spelled wrong in all of these, we'll need to ensure we rectify that. Go Phightins! 19:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Somehow did not like the orange one. Green one again not pleasing to the eye. Here are two others from me. The font colour for both of them needs to be appropriately changed though.

Editor of the Week
Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


I really like the one with the "E90004" background. (the last one!) Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
He means the orange one TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
That's my favorite too...here's one more I came up with. Hey, TOS, and Gtwfan, are you interested in helping out with this project? Go Phightins! 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes. Notice my name at the end of the interested editors list? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW I prefer being called Soni than TOS. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry on both counts. Go Phightins! 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


How about this - A modified version of purple above - TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It's better because you can actually read the blue link to the WER page. Go Phightins! 20:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I don't like several of the colour combinations above; the colours in a number of them seem to vibrate against each other. Note WP:COLOR has links to tools that evaluate the colour contrast between foreground and background colours; in addition to assisting with accessibility, using high contrast colours will cause the message to jump out for all readers. Playing around with a gold-like text colour as a starting point, here's one combination I came up with, similar to the previous two but with more contrast:

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: Thank you for your great work! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Basically a dark background with light, bold text will stand out better. I've trimmed the sample text down as well: less is more for this type of banner. isaacl (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I like all but the last, red and dark blue, is my preferred. 2nd would be sky blue, 3rd...orange. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Just found this brilliant editor here who deserves to be the first WOTW, when we start the proposal - Kevinsong. Has made the best graphic images of the sun I have seen.

Just thought I might post it here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he means User:Kelvinsong. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
FWIW...I support SONI's choice. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Selection Banner Vote

Contrary to what normally occurs on Wikipedia, I would propose a "vote" of sorts for the banner. Rank your top 3 and list any one that you couldn't live with using the following format:

  1. Orange
  2. Light Purple
  3. Blue

Can't Live With: Red Go Phightins! 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Then we'll tally them up and use the selected one. Also we need to agree on the text to go within the banner. There are various suggestions above. In your !vote, also comment on which text you'd like to see. All right, the choices are:

Editor of the Week (1)
Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week (2)
Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week (3)
Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week (4)
Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week (5)
Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week (6)
Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week (7)
Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week (8)
Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor of the Week (9)
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: Thank you for your great work! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Votes

  1. Orange
  2. Sky Blue
  3. Other darker blue proposed by Isaac

Can't Live With: Lime green I think the text should read "Your ongoing efforts to improve Wikipedia have not gone unnoticed. The community thanks you for your great work. On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project, Go Phightins! 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)" Note: I think someone should sign it, or multiple people could, but I think it oughta be signed. Go Phightins! 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. Banner 9
  2. Banner 7 (with a different link text colour)
  3. Banner 3 (with bold text)

Can't live with: Banners 1, 2, 6 (some others would look better with bold text, or with a different background colour for the barnstar)

Suggested text: Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for your work on Yyyyy and Zzzz. Thank you for the great contributions!

Then immediately below the banner, a paragraph with the full nomination text can be added, including the name of the nominator.

  • For example:

User:Yyyy submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

User:Xxxx has done a sterling job as a WP:Teahouse host over the past four months: always lending a friendly ear to newcomers, and finding ways to explain Wikipedia policies clearly and succinctly. Many editors have expressed their appreciation of Xxxx (links to diff1, diff2, diff3). I believe Xxxx has helped build a welcoming, positive atmosphere for editors, and I nominate Xxxx for Editor of the Week.

Thanks again for your efforts! (signature of notifier goes here)

isaacl (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • My Vote:
  1. Font and message from #5
  2. Banner #9.
  3. Not sure I support the submitted by ....and why part. Only because it will require more time and effort on the part of "someone". I love the idea just I worry about the work required. Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I've numbered the choices to make it easier to refer to them. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding including the reason for the nomination, a part of effective recognition is telling recipients why they received the award, so they know what good work was appreciated, and the award doesn't seem like a random happenstance. Mentioning the nominator makes the award more personal, which helps build collegial spirit, and provides a bit of visibility to nominators, helping to encourage them to submit nominations. As for the work involved, it means the award co-ordinator has to think of a quick summary, and copy and paste the nomination text; I don't think this is too onerous.

I think a brief summary should be included in the banner, so if recipients copy it to another location, there will be a reminder of why they got the award right in the banner. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

_Phightins!|!]] 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

#9a

Editor of the Week (9a)
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for your work as a Teahouse host. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Yyyy submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

User:Xxxx has done a sterling job as a WP:Teahouse host over the past four months: always lending a friendly ear to newcomers, and finding ways to explain Wikipedia policies clearly and succinctly. Many editors have expressed their appreciation of Xxxx (links to diff1, diff2, diff3). I believe Xxxx has helped build a welcoming, positive atmosphere for editors, and I nominate Xxxx for Editor of the Week.

Thanks again for your efforts! User:Nominator's signature goes here

#10

Editor of the Week (10)
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: Thank you for your great work! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
User:Xxxx has done a sterling job as a WP:Teahouse host over the past four months: always lending a friendly ear to newcomers, and finding ways to explain Wikipedia policies clearly and succinctly. Many editors have expressed their appreciation of Editor:Xxxx (links to diff1, diff2, diff3). I believe Xxxx has helped build a welcoming, positive atmosphere for editors, and I nominate Xxxx for Editor of the Week. Thanks again for your efforts! (signature of notifier goes here)

Our first nominee

  • Truthfully, I would love to suggest any one of you as the first recipient. I see all of you, everywhere, doing the work of making the ency. better. My next choice was (temporarily) User:Wateresque. A new ediotr with just barely 100 edits but a varied resume: reverting vandalism, welcoming new editors, a willingness to join projects and participate, basic article clean-up and an interest in the lost conversations of WP hiustory. I probably see my early WP days in his wanderings. BUT, he hasn't edited since before Christmas so I may nominate him should he revive his activity...but not as the First Recipient. Alas, I'm still searching for a candidate. How about you guys? Any candidates?```Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Batard0 comes to mind, but he receives a fair amount of recognition for all his GAs, so he might not be the greatest choice on the block. Go Phightins! 20:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Moved from (#Comment) above
Just found this brilliant editor here who deserves to be the first WOTW, when we start the proposal - Kevinsong. Has made the best graphic images of the sun I have seen. Just thought I might post it here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think he means User:Kelvinsong. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to moving this page to Wikipedia:Editor of the Week? (It can have a notice on it saying that the details are still being sorted out.) I suggest there be a subpage for Some time soon I hope to edit the main page a bit to try to consolidate what we've been able to agree upon (I realize there's still some key stuff pending, like the actual mechanics of selecting someone); any objection to moving the page to Wikipedia:Editor of the Week? I suggest that there be a subpage beneath it for nominations. isaacl (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep it under the WER page, perhaps Wikipedia:Editor retention/Editor of the week? Are we capitalizing week and is it Editor retention or Editor Retention? Go Phightins! 21:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The original page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention; I was thinking of uppercasing "Week" to emphasize that this is the name of an award, and not a literal statement ("this is the editor for this week; tune in for the editor of next week"). I'd like to create a redirect from WP:Editor of the Week / WP:Editor of the week for convenience. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Go Phightins! 02:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the page and made some edits to the page. It would be nice if an agreement could be reached on the selection process. Obviously I prefer my proposal in the Deadline section above, but if there is more support for another proposal, that would great too. Should more editors be solicited at the WT:WikiProject Editor Retention page, to see (a) if there are more editors willing to help out with accepting nominations; (b) if there are editors willing to handle the mechanics of presenting the award; and (c) if any of these interested parties can help establish a consensus on the process? (If there aren't more editors able to help with screening nominations, then we'll have to consider if it's enough just to have one or two persons doing the evaluations.) isaacl (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a confession to make: when I was copying TheOriginalSoni's nomination to the nomination page, I meant to put a note on the nominator's talk page saying I had done so. Unfortunately, I accidentally left the note on the nominee's talk page. I deleted it and tried to get the edit suppressed, but (as I expected) it did not meet the criteria for oversight. So the nominee is probably aware of the nomination. isaacl (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we can forgive you , especially considering all the work you've done. I agree with all of your administrative procedures and I guess that leaves it purely to a logistical question. Who clerks, when/for how long is someone a clerk, how many, how officially do they decide (e.g., via email, do we all have email enabled?) etc. Personally, I thought that having three clerks per week would be a good idea using a sign-up system of some kind. One thing we will need to decide is who can be a clerk...anyone in good standing? Do they have to be a member of WER? There are just several logistical details at this point. Go Phightins! 04:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the selection procedure, as I previously raised, I'd like to remove the section on voting and just say a discussion is held to reach a consensus. Does anyone have any objections? The templates for the banner and user box need to be created; while I was thinking of having a go at the banner (with a parameter for the brief reason for the nomination), if anyone else would like to do it, please proceed! isaacl (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think anyone that signs up as a member of this selection committee (?) is a clerk. We don't need to state that fact...its just an accepted fact among the five six (prior to our first award presentation) original members. I agree the voting procedure should be abandoned. It was gonna be too much work anyway. As to our first nominee...I think the Universe has helped us make our first selection ...User:Kevinsong. Which makes me wonder..."Should we continue to notify the nominees prior to or during the selection process?" I think not. Why disappoint editors that are not selected. Also, my banner-creating capacity is limited to rough drafts. We are on schedule! ```Buster Seven Talk 08:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
We can discount voting; perhaps a process similar to what they do at Merchandise Giveaways, which is a nomination, a discussion and then J. Alexander comes through and awards recipients. Except in this case, we would be Alexander. Thoughts? Go Phightins! 11:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have kinda let you more experienced dudes take care of the details here, but I will reiterate my willingness to serve in a clerical capacity for this project. I think it is a good one! Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think a discussion should be sufficient to reach a consensus, without formalized voting. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And as an aside, is this the banner we decided on:

Editor of the Week (10)
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: Thank you for your great work! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
User:Xxxx has done a sterling job as a WP:Teahouse host over the past four months: always lending a friendly ear to newcomers, and finding ways to explain Wikipedia policies clearly and succinctly. Many editors have expressed their appreciation of Editor:Xxxx (links to diff1, diff2, diff3). I believe Xxxx has helped build a welcoming, positive atmosphere for editors, and I nominate Xxxx for Editor of the Week. Thanks again for your efforts! (signature of notifier goes here)

In the banner for Kelvinsong, I would suggest: "Your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, especially in the area of graphics creation, have not gone unnoticed. Thank you for your great work!

I'm a bit confused; are you suggesting different text than what appears in your example 10? Strictly from a content perspective, I like what is in banner example #9, but different wording is OK too, such as in the suggestion you have immediately above; my personal preference is to keep it relatively short. I do not think the banner should be signed; the text following the banner that includes the full nomination text will be signed. isaacl (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought you wanted us to include a tidbit from the nomination in the banner? Now I'm confused. Go Phightins! 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't notice there are two examples numbered 9 above. I've changed one to "9a"; in this one, the text "for your work as a Teahouse host" is an example of a brief summary that I suggested should go into the banner, with the full text after the banner, as shown in example 9a. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on process

I think the nomination should list specific accomplishments being recognized, so that any discussion can remain focused on the value of the work, and not be a hunting exercise for any kind of issue with the nominee. It can be a long-term set of work, such as "the editor is a tireless gnome, making many maintenance edits to tidy up the edits of others so they align with Wikipedia's writing style."

I don't believe there should be voting per se on the nominees, unless there is the happy problem of having too many people to recognize at once, and some means to thin the backlog is needed. I believe an open discussion on the worthiness of the tasks being recognized should be enough to reach a general consensus. Even if there were a backlog, I'd prefer just recognizing multiple people for a number of weeks to clear the queue.

In general, I think the process should be as lightweight as possible. There shouldn't be much abuse to guard against: I can't imagine people would care so much about "editor of the week" that they would make bad-faith nominations. Poor good-faith nominations is a bigger potential problem, but as long as there was no controversy associated with a nominee's tasks, it should be fairly clear if they were an improvement to Wikipedia. (Controversy would, for better or worse, likely be a red flag for a set of nominated work.) isaacl (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I made suggestions about voting i would prefer that voting not be a part of the process. I also agree about lightweight and relatively management free, as much as possible. The fewer rules, the fewer problems and rule-breaking. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I imagine that this process would get more than 52 editors nominated per year, therefore, we have to have some method of making decisions. I'm obviously open to suggestions, but that's just what I originally came up with. Go Phightins! 03:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we have different ideas about the type of work that should be recognized. If we're just thinking of things like "wrote a good article from scratch", "did a lot of useful tidyup work", "found references for unsourced claims", then I don't think there will be a lot of contention over accepting a nomination or not. If there ends up being more nominations accepted than one a week and there is a significant backlog, then I think the number of recognized editors per week should be increased until the queue is brought down to a manageable level. isaacl (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought that we were looking for one person a week (e.g., Wikipedian of the week or Editor of the week, not Wikipedians or editors of the week) Go Phightins! 04:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If we're so fortunate to have, say, on average two worthy persons nominated per week, why not recognize them both? Again, this comes back to what we feel should be recognized. I see this award as a slightly more public alternative to giving a barnstar or other form of Wiki acknowledgement, for a well-executed set of work sustained over a period of time, or an exceptionally good individual piece of work. If you're thinking of a bit higher standard of exclusivity, then more process may be required (but I'm not convinced then that the overhead would be worth the result). isaacl (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC)* Let's accurately ascertain the problems::

  • Only one per week. (which I prefer unless convinced otherwise) What to do with the other nominees? First 52 are our candidates for the year?
  • Nomination window? Only consider those nominated within a set time period...4 hours on a Monday night, lets say. No nominee? We go to the queue.
  • We dont want to paint ourselves into a corner of "theres to much to do'. Consensus of clerks decide who the nominee is?.

```Buster Seven Talk 04:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Nice "ascertension"...I don't think it would be too much work if we operated a nominations system similar to what they have over at merchandise giveaways, where we just leave the nominations open indefinitely. I think what we can do is have maybe three people sign up to clerk for weeks they can commit to being around (similar to how Maitre d' works at the Teahouse for those of you familiar with that), and they look through the nominations, the comments, etc. and settle upon who the editor of the week is and make the announcement, maybe two weeks out. I don't think we're going to ever have a shortage of nominees. Go Phightins! 04:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the idea of rotating clerks like the teahouse Maitre d' would be perfect. Qualifications for the position? I think membership in either WER or Teahouse Host or Welcoming commitee or a similar type project should be included. BTW, thanks for the reminder...I need to sign up for Maitre d'! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with just having nominations open all the time. As they are accepted, they can go into a queue, just in case there is a dry spell of nomination. If the queue builds up, then multiple nominees can be recognized for a few weeks until the queue goes down. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm going to respectfully disagree with you as far as multiple editors being recognized in the same week unless they have been working together on something and one can't be recognized without the other (e.g., Editor A and Editor B just teamed up for a GA). In that case, having "co-editors of the week" makes sense. Go Phightins! 04:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I'd prefer that any work above a certain standard is a candidate for recognition, and we spread the recognition around. I believe this is simpler to establish, avoids a lot of heated discussion if editor A is more worthy than editor B, and minimizes overhead. If instead the award is set up as a weekly reward to recognize a single editor, then a framework does have to be put in place to try to filter out the top editors in the project, in order to avoid appearing arbitrary. I just don't think the benefit would outweigh the cost. isaacl (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wording and placement of award

Sorry, I couldn't read all the talk, so the following may not be new ;)

  • "Your contnuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. The Wikipedia community wishes to thank you for all your hard work.... On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project" - the first line has passive voice and negation - could it be phrased active and positive? (also 2 typos)
  • Can you speak for The Community? Why not the project?
  • "wishes to thank"? thanks
  • "all your hard work" - really all? why hard?
  • can we decide if it's Retention or retention?
  • I suggest to prefer editors who had not many awards so far - it would make a real difference for those (not people like me)
  • I suggest to place a copy of the award with the name of the week on top of the well watched project talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Earlier on in this discussion, it occurred to me that this award should go to under-recognized people too. Back in my days as a retail manager, I used to make a point of giving the "Employee of the Month" award to my "less than stellar" employees. If a person's history is to constantly screw up, then a month where they didn't screw up was a pretty awesome achievement. And the thing of it is, when you recognize improvement, the improvement tends to stick! Just my $.02. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) The wording was just a mock-up draft that Buster created. I agree with your final two stipulations. What about this wording: "Your continuing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have been noticed by your fellow editors. The Wikipedia community thanks you for your work. On behalf of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project, ..." I still like "The Wikipedia community" more than "the project". Go Phightins! 20:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for good wording! I may have my personal problem with the community, often not agreeing with it. What if the project decorates editor A whom editor B, who is part of the community, can't stand? If it's a project selection, why not say so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
So what would you suggest? Simply "the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project"? I tend to agree with Soni HA GOT IT THIS TIME here. Go Phightins! 21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the award is more so to recognize editors for their good work. We must not be more focused on being gramatically and technically correct than to make sure the editor feels welcome for their quality editing. "All your hard work" and "community" are better alternatives here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There may be other editors who disagree, but this project and award is all about recognising great works of unknown editors and giving them a nice pat on the back. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. I was talking to Gerda, sorry for the bad threading job. Go Phightins! 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
You heard me ;) "great work" and "good work" sound much nicer to me than "hard work", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I could go along with great work. Go Phightins! 21:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Same here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Support "great work", Strong Support for "Community"...which implies a connectedness, a bond with fellow editors. I think we are ALL citizens of the Wikipedia Community and its a positive to instill that thought "into" new editors. "Community" sells a vision, "Project", while wonderful, is like a slice of pizza. (???) ```Buster Seven Talk 13:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia Awards

Reading through Wikipedia:Barnstars, it asks for new barnstars to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. Perhaps a discussion should be opened on this page to discuss this award, as it nominally falls under this project's scope of interest? isaacl (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. As I understand it, this is not the kind of thing that any one editor can independently hand out, so I don't know if it fits there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It may be courteous to give the project a heads up, regardless; this award could be seen as fitting underneath the scope of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign to which the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards page refers. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That's true enough. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Go Phightins! 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines

The guidelines have at present "All comments about editors must be civil and presented in a neutral way...this is not to turn into a mini-RfA." - I suggest to drop that altogether as (hopefully!) not needed. If kept, I suggest to drop the RfA part. I that needs to be kept, use "..." properly, with a space if it isn't for part of a word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with my proposed process, I'd like to change the reference in the process to a vote with a reference to a discussion reaching consensus. I'd suggest changing the guideline you mention to highlight that comments should focus on the positive and the specific areas for which the editor has been nominated and not be an adversarial discussion. The editor does not need to be a 100% perfect editor to be named Editor of the Week, and so there is no need to dredge up every negative incident. isaacl (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with dropping that; that's still original language from when I made a quick draft a few weeks ago. I think a reminder that this is supposed to be positive would still be a good idea, however. Go Phightins! 20:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
We all know the possibility of naysayers showing up to speak against a nominee. Like Editors state above we are not looking for perfect editors. I also think a reminder against defamitory comments is necessary. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
How about, "Please remain positive in your comments related to other editors and if you have a legitimate concern, please state it in a civil manner not intended to defame the editor in question." or something to that effect. I'm not a huge fan of the wording, especially at the end, but that's the sentiment I want it to have. Go Phightins! 02:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be made very clear that no unnecessary negativity will be tolerated and the posting editor will not get to determine what is necessary. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the wording. I was asked to look over the award page, and like it. - Consider an archive of the nominations, or perhaps start a format similar to the DYK nominations. - I suggest to show the editor of the week also on the project page. - Said before: look for editors who didn't yet get many awards, to make a difference, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we all check out User:Bibliomaniac15/Today/Archive for some ideas. No sense in re-inventing the wheel.```Buster Seven Talk 01:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
We should probably start an archive here, but first, we need to award our first user. Are we in agreement that it needs to be Kelvinsong? Go Phightins! 02:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Where does the discussion on that take place? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Auto, check out "Our first nominee" above for the discussion. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure, but it kind of has to be Kelvin because Issac accidentally posted something about it on his talk page rather than the nom of Kelvin's talk, so the beans are spilled. Go Phightins! 02:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, regardless, it would be good to get that ironed out. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a section on procedures to the Editor of the Week page, where I suggested that nominations be discussed on the nominations talk page. isaacl (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on WT:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations; feel free to join in! isaacl (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a placeholder on the Editor of the Week page for a table of past recipients; please feel free to start the table. isaacl (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Announcement

someone needs to notify the other project members that a Ed of the Week has been determoined and an award will be distributed Sunday Eveining. via the Mani Project talk page I am literally out the door on a trip and out of touch ( I only use rotary phones. The EYE-Phone scares me. I think its watching me!!!!) Also, have we decided who will give Kelvinsong the Award.????? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Following the procedure for accepted nominations, and in order to get the queue page created, I've moved Kelvinsong's nomination to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification message ready

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient notification has been created and is ready for use. The page documents how to use it and gives an example. Note the template should be substituted (using the "subst:" syntax) on the recipient's talk page, so that future changes to the template won't retroactively change everyone's notification messages. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Publicity

Where should this initiative be advertised, in order to garner nominations? isaacl (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You could try the signpost. As an aside, should we remove Easter Bunny from the list of recipients shown on the main page? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I just placed it there to start the table; I assumed whoever presents the first award will remove the placeholder name when adding the first recipient. However, we can remove it now, too. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I gather that Kelvinsong is the winner. At what time do we want the presentation to be made? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
In accordance with the procedures, on Sunday. I'm a bit concerned there still aren't enough interested parties to keep this initiative running, so I'm not sure how hard to push ahead with soliciting nominations. Nonetheless, I've put a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention, asking for nominations. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it will eventually draw enough attention that it is sustainable. I helped to start a project that took quite a while to get fully the ground but it looks like it finally is. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I made a collaboration section and featured this as the first one on the main project page.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I am guessing the admins have an email network, maybe Dennis or another admin would put out the word to the other admins as so to build nomination traffic? Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the day

Today is the day that I believe we are going to announce Kelvinsong as the first editor of the week. From an administrative standpoint, which color scheme did we decide to go with for the banner and what message are we putting inside of it? Have we made a userbox yet? Who is going to formally post the award on his talk page? Go Phightins! 17:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems Isaac created the award page, but is everyone all right with that color scheme? And we still need the userbox and to iron out who will formally post it on his talk. I would be happy to, unless someone else wants to. Go Phightins! 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I just used example #9a as a starting point; any other colour scheme and text that is amenable to everyone is fine. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box is still uncreated (as of this moment), so I'm not aware of any user box. I suggest going ahead and creating the user box; the text in the notification message can then be altered to show a block of text that can be copied-and-pasted by recipients to their desired location on their user page (personally I think it is better to let them do it so they can maintain control over their own user page, but if others think otherwise, that's OK too). isaacl (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I created the userbox. Go Phightins! 18:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the notification message to show the text to include on the user page to display the user box. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Barring any objection, I plan on putting the notification message on his talk in a few minutes. Go Phightins! 21:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done Go Phightins! 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Its on the project mainpage now. Hope it is OK. If we can figure out how to change the background and font color to match the clors that were chosen that would be great. I'll look into it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Assuming you are referring to the colours in the banner, I suggest using them as accent colours rather than for the whole box—say the heading at the top. The current scheme is better suited for a short run of text. isaacl (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That much I believe can be done without too much difficulty.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

IP's

Are IP editors eligible? Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. My concern with IPs is that multiple people can have the same IP address. I don't know. What do the others think? Go Phightins! 02:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That is my concern, too. But I know my IP doesn't change unless I unhook my modem. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Plausible but not likely, for most cases. The chances that there will be several dedicated Wikipedia editors from the same IP seems unlikely. As for any doubts, we can always double check their edits to see consistency in behaviour. Otherwise, I see no reason not to recognize excellent work by IPs. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Commenting solely on the question of multiple editors editing from one IP address: eventually, anyone editing from a dynamic IP will get a new address (power failures happen, or the ISP itself may undergo an upgrade that causes a restart). isaacl (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
A long-term issue is that editors looking at the list of past recipients to understand the laudable behaviours being recognized would have to look at the contributions leading up to the award, to be reasonably sure that the right edits were being examined. (The link in the recipients table could be tailored to point to the contributions leading up to the award date.) In general, though, as unfortunate as it is, recognition programs tend to work better when you can recognize a specific persona, rather than one whose identity might change underneath. isaacl (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
We could consider registration as a prerequitsit for this just for the fact that we are encouraging attribution of contents by the contributer and attribution is not to an IP but the individual. IPs are editors, but how many will always be a question. A registered Wikipedian is or goal to spotlight an individuals contributions and the first editor demonstates the basic reasons to have both accounts. We want to encourage this type of editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Above I gave a high-level view of the type of work I suggest be recognized by this award: good ongoing work over a sustained period of time (for example, fleshing out citations on articles over four months), or one outstanding task (for example, bringing an article's content to the level of a featured article). Given that a number of you have recipients in mind already, I think it would be useful if you would describe the work that you believe should be recognized, so that we can hopefully establish a common understanding of what is deemed sufficient for recognition, and examples can be given in the instructions. What are your views? isaacl (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I am on my way out now so I don't have a ton of time, but in general, noteworthy content creation (be it through new articles, article expansion, cleanup) either one big job, or doing so over a longer period of time, or doing a terrific job right off the bat as a new user, behind-the-scenes work that doesn't usually gain recognition, or noteworthy mediation or dispute resolution. Go Phightins! 11:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    When you have a bit more time, and if you already have some specific recipients in mind, could you provide some specific examples of work you have in mind, so they can be used to help guide nominations? Thanks! isaacl (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I shall break my retirement for making this one edit because I thought I should comment on this. First, I nominate User:Kelvinsong to be the among the first recipients of this award. He is quite new, and has been creating some spectacularly high quality graphics (many of them FP status) - Just take a look at them yourself.
As for the category itself, I believe we should just stick to "high quality work on Wikipedia". That, and good jugdement ought to be sufficient enough to choose our candidates well. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, the broader the criteria (and I have no inherent objection to this), the more difficult it may be to avoid a backlog of recipients, if there is just one a week. Also, to help guide nominators, I think it would be useful to provide some specific examples ("high quality graphics" is good; links to a few specific graphics and a bit of description about why you consider them high quality would be even better). Recognition is held in higher esteem by the recipient when specific accomplishments are listed. isaacl (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • PEA <---> Positive Editing attitude, works well with others. Understandable <---> Clear communication. No walls of words. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    I suspect "positive editing attitude" is going to be a pretty broad criterion that a lot of people can meet, and so might lead to a lot of work in selecting just one weekly recipient; can you think of some ways to narrow it down? isaacl (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I see your point: working well with others is the expected behavior for editors. Congenial, positive article talk page conversation is the norm. I guess what I meant was an editor that acknowledges the good working relationship. "It's been a pleasure" kind of stuff. Ive seen it happen and it makes me feel good when I see it. I'm sure the editor receiving the praise feels even better. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I will try to post more in depth in several hours when I have an extended, un-interrupted hour, but I just wanted to quickly say that I agree with Isaac that we need to clearly define the criteria and seek to narrow them a tad so that we focus on awarding editors who might not otherwise be recognized but who do great work on the project. In other words, no disrespect to Dennis, but he gets a ton of barnstars and the like and is well-recognized and therefore is not a good candidate for this award. We should be looking for people who don't usually get recognition, but do a fantastic job. Go Phightins! 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree; let's get some recognition for the unsung heroes of the project! isaacl (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Promising start" editors

In addition to some of the criteria described by Go Phightins! and me above (in a quick, oversimplified nutshell: under-recognized editor who has either done good work for a period of time, or a fabulous job at an important task), ‎Gtwfan52 and TheOriginalSoni have suggested that new editors who show promise in some way be recognized. My personal experience with recognition is that recognizing specific, meaningful tasks makes it more fulfilling for both the recipient and the nominator, which is why I made my suggestions for this award's criteria. However, encouraging promising new editors is also beneficial. It could be with this award (in which case, I think it might be necessary to examine giving out more than one award a week, as I think there are many promising starts every day), or perhaps a "Rookies of the Week" award, specifically designed to highlight someone with say less than three months editing experience. What does everyone think? I'm just brainstorming ideas; feel free to suggest something else. isaacl (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it would be best to do one thing for now until we have gotten this project firmly off the ground and then we can think about branching out. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't really advocate awarding really new editors, but an editor who has come here, done the smart thing and made a few edits here and there and asked the questions that needed to be asked, and then on their 50th or so edit, cranks out a "C" class article or makes a significant, well referenced addition to an existing article...well, that is an editor that deserves recognition. Sarah gave me a barnstar after roughly my 20th edit; I had gone to the teahouse and asked the questions that I needed to ask, and then jumped in and cleaned up a crufty school article. That recognition for really not much kept me going here. If someone with under 100 edits can do something 10 times that cool, well, I think they deserve a reward 10 times as cool. Just one man's opinion. And BTW, I think a rookie of the week award would be a great thing to do, on down the line! Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
My brain is currently under a hibernation mode, but I dont think I could have said it a lot better than Gtwfan52. I however do not particularly appreciate the idea of a Rookie of the Year. I think its too soon to be thinking of expansion TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not so much thinking of expansion, but just separating your suggestion of focusing on editors who have had under one month's experience (which personally I think fits the description of really new editors) from the other criteria that was discussed above. The current criteria allows a new editor to be recognized for a superbly done task, but it also allows for other editors to be recognized for making substantial contributions over a period of time. Is there a consensus with TheOriginalSoni's suggestion that new editors are the best recipients for Editor of the Week? In that case, we can revise the criteria accordingly. isaacl (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
As GtW points out, a new editor can certainly do the things necessary to attain EotW. I see no reason to limit our scope. Better that we have a long list of nominees to choose from than none. A Rookie Award sounds fine and do-able...down the line. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Deadline

Just a gentle reminder. We want to present a banner and selection guideline to the other project members by Jan 15. If you have candidates, get 'em in...or "vote" for User:Kevinsong so that we have agreement. Lets have a banner choice by mid-week? Can some one line 'em up and we can rank our favorites...or some selection process. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we still haven't reached an agreement on how to decide who gets the award. For clarity, here is my suggested procedure again, all in one spot:
  • As nominations come in, a selection committee decides if each nomination is accepted or not.
  • Accepted nominations go into a queue.
  • Each accepted nomination is named editor of the week, in chronological order.
  • If there is a backlog of accepted nominations beyond a threshold value (for example, 12 entries), then have two editors of the week until the backlog drops to the threshold. Alternatively, re-evaluate the criteria for accepting nominations and make them more stringent.
Until we have have agreed on how to process nominations, I don't think we should open up nominations yet. Also, I think it would be helpful to have some specific nomination examples to provide concrete illustrations of what type of work is targeted for recognition. isaacl (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Also note two of the participants on this page have stepped back from Wikipedia work; we might be missing critical mass to evaluate the nominations. It could probably still work with one trusted person making the selections, but in that case the need to have specified criteria for acceptance becomes more important. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 👍 Like Just wanted to keep the ball rolling. Doesnt have to be 1/15. Just a target date.  Done Bravo! ```Buster Seven Talk 16:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reminder!

This is a quick reminder to all the members that we are yet to decide on an Editor of the Week for our second week. Unless we keep nominating and rewarding new users, we cannot really have the project be continuously active. I suggest a semi-mandatory requirement of at least 1 nomination from each one of us in the next 2-3 days, so that we have a steady stream of nominations to choose from for our first few weeks. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should nominees be listed in alphabetical order or not? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Though at the current trends, it will require us to buckle up on nominations to require that question :P TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for replying. I'm writing out a nomination now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's better to just add the nomination at the bottom, so they can be processed in chronological order (and awarded that way, too). isaacl (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, adding at the bottom creates an "easy for clerks to discern" chronology of nominations. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope

Currently our scope is limited to:

Editor of the Week


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.

Do we wish to expand that in any way? Currently a nomination has been made for Sitush, a fine editor, but not within the criteria of our project. Should we expand the criteria to include ALL editors or stick to our current criteria?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Stick with it. No disrespect, but editors like Sitush get enough recognition. We're looking to retain editors by making them feel appreciated and recognizing those who aren't usually recognized. Go Phightins! 03:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
As we've discussed on this talk page, the award is trying to draw some attention to lesser known editors. This has a secondary value by letting other similar editors know that quietly done good work is appreciated. There's plenty of existing barnstars, and of course a personal note to any editor expressing your appreciation is always welcome; Editor of the Week doesn't have to be stretched to cover every situation. isaacl (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Sitush, much like Gerta, is well known. And both get their fair share of pats on the back, in different ways. My focus will be finding editors "less celebrated yet deserving renown". Well put. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we may have decided on the title of our project too soon. Is it possible that the small amount of interest in this project at this time is limiting our ability to keep up a weekly venture? Would we be better off with a "WER FEATURE EDITOR" instead of editor of the week, or even "WER EDITOR OF THE MONTH"? Should we consider this?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments pertaining to the nomination. Not on the nominee

I bring these issues up now so that we can have a meeting of the minds as to how to proceed and to give us guidelines moving forward. Please realize that the nominator will not always be as understanding as Ryan. Consider the ramifications if we are too strict...but the MESS if we are not.

  • Do we accept unsigned nominations?
In this specific case, I have signed for Ryan which is not really "official" and may give an improper impression. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC).
  • Do we move the nomination or do we require that in order for it to be valid it must be done correctly, following simple easy-to-follow editorial instructions?
This may be a bit too "stuck-in-the-mud. Maybe I'm making an issue where there isn't one. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Do we then ask the nominator to re-submit?
Same as above. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me answer my own questions: Since the "view history" page will give us the information we need, there is no need to embarass the nominator. We use 3 tildes so as not to 'forge" the full signature. Its safe to assume 100% that lack of signing was just forgetfulness. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


  • Should we assign different tasks to different clerks...moving improperly submitted Noms, for instance?
  • ```Buster Seven Talk 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I think assigning different clerks different tasks has merit. Thus far, we have:
    • I agree that rules are going to be important for this; we want to be accommodating, but at the same time not create a mess for ourselves. --Go Phightins! 14:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor retires EotW project. Does not get watch for days of service

User:TheOriginalSoni has plaoed a RETIRED tag on his page. Does anyone know why???? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He said he has examinations coming up. Of course, he could be lying! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A quote that fits our teamwork

The beginning is perhaps more difficult than anything else, but keep heart, it will turn out all right......Vincent van Gogh

That's profound. Yup. You're right; that fits us. Go Phightins! 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That would apply to WP:TAFI as well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut

I am clueless when it comes to things like this, but could someone who isn't create a simple shortcut to the nomination page? You know, like how WP:N takes you to notability? I wanted to get going on some publicity, at ANI and some of the projects I frequent, and was just looking for a way to make it easier for people to come to the nomination page and nominate someone. I will write the publicity script for it tonite or tomorrow and run it by you guys before I start. Thanks. Maybe one day I won't be so clueless about this techie stuff. And maybe one day, we will actually get the flying cars they promised us at one time! Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Clueless? That makes 2 of us. Most of the time I have my fingers crossed. Have you ever tried to type with your fingers crossed? Ive just created my own shortcut to all the EOTW pages on my User page. I agree that its becoming one of those No Parking/alt.Wed/Here to corner/Permit Only/unless flashers are on/Street Cleaning 7AM to 7PM city info poles. It should be easier to navigate. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week box

I'm working on a new box. The Infox we have is a bit big and a bit limited. I am going to do something similar to the TAFI box. And should be able to use more graphics.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not replacing the template we use but have created this box as well as an alternative:
editor of the week is:
Surtsicna
Surtsicna edits articles primarily related to Royal Families and nobility
One of the many silent workers on Wikipedia, Surtsicna has been an example for all of Wikipedia through his ceaseless editing without a single page about himself. His 30000+ article edits and 140+ articles created speak volumes about his dedication to the project. His articles are based primarily on Medieval nobility and royal families and have been the focus of over 40 DYKs. His simple talk page showcases the humility of the type of underappreciated editor who forms the backbone of this encyclopedia.
Next nominations
Editor Retention Editor of the Week For the week beginning for the week beginning March 31, 2013

Edit this section

--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC) This one is just a basic box so it can be tweaked a little easier. This is the basic set up. Its a two page set up. So the tile page can be altered seperately from the "blurb" section similar to how TAFI is set up.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for procedural discussions

Can I suggest that the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations be reserved for discussion of individual nominations, and other discussions related to Editor of the Week be placed on this page? This will make it easier, for example, to tailor an appropriate archiving period for the nomination discussions, versus the procedure discussions. isaacl (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. By the way, has Coal Town Guy been of his achievement informed yet? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done Go Phightins! 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As suggested by Isaac, the sandbox for banners is now located here, rather than in my userspace. Is everyone all right with the nom text for Diiscool, who is at the top of the queue? Go Phightins! 15:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy?

How about posting this to Jimbo's talk page, and see what he thinks of this project. If not him, then maybe some of the other editors possibly interested might see this programme and hop in. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A good suggestion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyone mind doing this on behalf of the WER? I am not sure I can express it the best way possible. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I can look into it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Should we also add this template? - {{WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page}} TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Should we also have the EotW template posted on Jimbo's talk page? That might be good. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not clear on what purpose it would serve. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I thought it to be quite attractive a banner, and thought it might get us some attention. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure how you want it to be done, so I'll let you take care of it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Scrap that. Unless another editor concurs with me on this, lets just stick with what we have done. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the template as an illustration of our encouragement to other editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the neatest thread I have ever seen! ```Buster Seven Talk 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Could this be a good example of how to proceed?

Wikipedia talk:Today's article for improvement

I forgot about this little project I joined some time ago. It is about to go onto the mainpage. Could this be good inspiration to this project?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but keep in mind, it took TAFI a long time to get to where it is now. In fact, it took a while for it to even start choosing articles. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems like it was just last summer...wait, I think it was. But I get your point.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

2nd week

I believe today we should be ready with out nominee, the infobox and his barnstar; so we have no problems posting them by tomorrow. Eric seems to be the most appropriate candidate, and though I have not personally seen his contribs, I would support him since he sounds good.

Lets get everything ready now guys!!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Eric, but we have til Sunday afternoon to post it on his page (at least that's when I got Kelvinsong). Granted, Sunday afternoon is different for me than it is for some of the rest of you I'm sure (unless everyone lives in the Eastern Time Zone of the U.S. which I don't believe is the case), but I agree with Eric. I'll look into the barnstar tomorrow. The userbox doesn't need any elaboration. Go Phightins! 03:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Could there be any pic/link that we could add to his infobox? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
A baseball graphic would be appropriate, I think. But how was consensus determined for this nominee? Last week it was very clear; this week, not so much. I guess I am having a problem due to a time zone problem. It is still Friday here in the States, so can we go a few more hours in attempt to get a clearer consensus? Actually, the last I knew we were going to give the award to the acceptable noms in the order they were nominated, but it really doesn't matter. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Its Saturday here already and so I thought we might as well decide now.
There are 4 votes for him (compared to at most 2 for others) [including the nom and me]. So I think the consensus is pretty clear. Right? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I only see two, and that is what everyone else has, except Gerda, and she doesn't want it. So, waiting a bit seems appropriate. I do not object to Eric...he appears to be a fine candidate, but I don't see a consensus for him unless we are discussing this in yet another place I don't know about. If your concern is enough time to get all the graphics done, you don't lose anything by preparing them ahead. We know all these nominees will eventually get the award, right? Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I think he was counting himself and the nominator (me) in getting a total of four. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm oy. sorry. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What happened to Coal town Guy? He was the next to be nominated. I don't like this voting concept. For sure quality good editors are going to get lost in the shuffle unless its just a queue with sufficient support of the clerks of which there are seven. Icassl, although much involved, has not added his name to the list. Sitash and Gerda are out...for different reasons. Coal town guy should be next BUT....Go With Eric since that seems to be the consensus. But Coal Town Guy should be #3. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Buster, not because CTG was my nom, but because like Buster, I don't like this voting stuff. We should vet nominees on the talkpage, and once we are happy with their qualifications, queue them and award them in order. We did reach a consensus that there would be just one per week, right? And like Buster, I am fine with Eric going this week. We just need to all get on the same page here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Further thoughts: In other words, going forward, we are not going to give the award to the nominee with the most votes or support. The nominees are placed in the queue and we all know who is next...unless some reason comes up, like it did with Sitash and Gerda, How much easier can it be. The more complicated the selection process is, the more chance of a short-lived project. Gerda's Award works because she is the only one that decides. Are we all on the same page or are we reading different magazines??? ```Buster Seven Talk 06:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I can go with either CTG or Eric. Doesn't matter to me...one this week, the other next week. And let's go by Sunday UTC to get it posted (e.g., 7 PM eastern time on Sunday evening is the deadline). I can tell you Eric is in the U.S., probably central time zone, so he would still get it Sunday if that's when we posted it. Go Phightins! 12:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
That is, in fact, the procedure I proposed and that is described in the "Administrative procedures" section. I think a first-in, first out procedure is simplest. isaacl (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I moved the nomination texts for the ones Buster marked as accepted (plus Eric) to the accepted queue. Since all the nominators for these recipients are watching this page, I have skipped the "notify the nominator" step that normally follows the acceptance (or lack of acceptance) of a nomination. In the general case, though, please remember to tell the nominators about the outcome of their suggestions. isaacl (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

All right, is everyone all right with Eric this week, and then CTG next week? I've laid out what I would propose Eric's banner look like here. Any thoughts or suggestions? Go Phightins! 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes here and where is the banner, altho I am sure it is fine. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep! ```Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Works for me. Once it is official I will change the template and write up another small Bio. If I cannot find an appropriate image I will just use the Project "star" image.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Banner looks great. Thanks, GP! and, hey, Madscientist? Eric has a userbox on his page indicating his love of sailing, so maybe a sailboat? (one of those hot catamarans that they are using in this year's America's Cup? They are screamin cool!) Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
When are we going to do it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done Go Phightins! 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I changed the template. Hope it looks fine. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Amadscientist, is there any way to preserve a permanent copy of the EOTW template? Kelvin's page, as I suspected, now contains Eric's bio and template. Maybe we could add the week when Kelvin was EOTW (Week 3, 2013) and add a link to current awardee template? (See current Editor of the Week) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is. We could add Subst: before the template. The only reason I did not do that was so the template would change even on the editors talkpage to help promote each new editor. However if you wish to leave a permanet template that does not change on the editors TP use {{subst:Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page}}. Instead of showing the template page itself, it drops all the coding onto the page as a permanent mark up.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change on the recipients talkpages so they will remain as historic reference to their specific award. I agree with TheOriginalSoni that that is best. Anyone reading it can still click the links to see the most recent editor awarded.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you mind adding a "Week" section that tells which week the editor was nominated for? That shall be better, IMO. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was an oversite on my part. I'll fix it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Archiving approved noms

Regarding the nominations talk page, is there some sort of way to manually archive a nomination once the nominee is moved into the queue? It would make for less clutter. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The last time we required it, Isaac and I used the {{ArchiveNow}} template. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Lack of consensus?

I think there is a lack of consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations#User:Worm That Turned regarding this nomination. As I mentioned in another thread on that page, I think it would be great to have an award specifically targeted at lesser-known editors, and let editors such as Worm That Turned be recognized with one of the many other methods available, including a sincere personal note, which is always highly effective. Accordingly, I suggest removing Worm That Turned from the list of accepted nominations. isaacl (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is lack of consensus. 5 clerks (one of whom has yet to add his name to the members list) have spoken up. 3 support the nomination, 2 do not. Since there are really only the five of us that are active participants, I'd say 3 was a solid number creating consensus to award Wolf. Rather than remove Editor Worm from the list, i might suggest that we move him down a bit in the Q until we can convince one of you that giving Worm the EOTW award does not set a bad precedent. We are creating a tradition, a history, for the Award. I am uncomfortable telling a nominator that his nominee will not receive the award because of some arbitrary decision by half a dozen clerks. Lets be generous...magnanimous...abundant. These are not Oscar Awards we are handing out. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
There are many forms of recognition that can be given and so Editor of the Week doesn't have to encompass all editors of all stripes. As this award is under the banner of the Editor Retention project, it seems more meaningful to specify criteria that helps further the goals of retaining editors. If there isn't going to be any specific criteria, then nominators might as well just give barnstars directly to their nominees, without any extra overhead. All editors should be encouraged to be generous and appreciative of others, without any need for clerks to rubber stamp this personal recognition: just go out and thank someone today! isaacl (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It's also nonsensical for an editor to be "editor of the week" in a week when they're not editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously it refers to the week they were awarded not to any timeframe of editing. This is not the same as the NBA Player of the Week. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a name such as "This week's unsung editor" would more accurately reflect the original intent behind the recognition award. isaacl (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying we should rename this project (which may be a good idea)? Or...we change our decision process at the point of distribution? Lets say when Worm comes up in the Q, we shift to "unsung editor" rather than Editor of the Week. This way the Q stays the way it is. We dont create a seperate line. But, if there is contention, as there is w/ Editor Worm's nomination, we have more options. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The genesis for this award was originally expressed by Dennis and echoed by others afterwards as the desire "to highlight someone who might otherwise fall under the radar. A way to simply acknowledge some otherwise ignored contributors." Assuming that consensus continues to agree with this intent, then it might be useful to name the recognition accordingly, to underscore the type of nominee being sought. (Personally, I don't think it's a big deal either way, but it could possibly avoid some confusion.) There are lots of barnstars covering many different categories; I think trying to keep a specific focus for this award makes it more meaningful for the recipients. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Lets see what others have to say. I personally have no problem renaming the Award. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to say that I disagree with the idea, but we want to have some stability at the start. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Revising my previous statement: I'm content with keeping the current name, as I also favour stability initially, but if it seems that it is a significant barrier in reaping appropriate nominations, or in recipients understanding the purpose of the award, then it might be useful to rename it at some point. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree to renaming, at some point, if necessary. Or adding an "unsung editor award" like the Distinguished Service Award. But we still need to resolve Worms status before he gets to the top of the Q. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I vehemently oppose re-naming the project and here's why: which would you, if you were one of the editors within our scope, prefer to see on your talk page: "Editor of the Week" or "Under-appreciated content-creator of the week"? This award is quickly going to become a joke if it has a lame title such as that. We need to keep it to editor of the week, and focus on editors who don't get recognized. For the umpteenth time, Worm is one of my favorite Wikipedians, but he should not be receiving our award. We have criteria for a reason, and therefore we need to follow them and recognize those who otherwise wouldn't be recognized. Worm was just elected to ArbCom for goodness sake; if that's not a recognition of your trust within the community, I don't know what is. Worm is known by almost every established editor on this project; is Eric, or CTG, or Kelvin? Probably not, but it's there work that keeps our encyclopedia going and it's editors like that who don't get enough recognition. What Worm does is pivotal, but he gets his recognition; unknown gnomes and content creators don't, and that is what this award was designed to do. Go Phightins! 03:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Rebranding this soon into the project would do nothing but make us seem lame. Worm's nom is controversial, and obviously without overall consensus at this time. I am not in agreement that he should be ineligible, but we do not have consensus at this time. We do on several others. It is Saturday night in the states and we need to have someone for next week. Buster seems to be the one keeping track of nominations, so, the question we have to answer and soon is: Who is next? The question of worm can be tabled and worked through in time. We have a deadline to name someone. We don't have a deadline to figure out anything about any one nominee. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Editor Diiscool is EotW #4. Rather than remove User:Wolf from the accepted Nom page (which one of the clerks has a problem with), Ill just move him down to the bottom to give us time to agree to a solutuion.```Buster Seven Talk 07:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)  Done```Buster Seven Talk 14:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been out and about his week and have yet to write up a banner for Diiscool, but I can do so after church (about three hours from now)... or someone else can if they feel so inclined. Go Phightins! 12:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Publicity box

OK, how do you guys like this?

Once I get a consensus or we make whatever changes you guys want, my plans are to post this at ANI and the main talk page of all the projects I am active with. Of course, you guys are welcome to do the same! So, whatcha all think? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Do you know an under-appreciated editor that should be recognized?
The folks over at WER-Editor of the Week are looking for "a few good men (or women)". Nominations are being accepted for "Editor of the Week". The ideal candidate is an editor who works hard, possibly doing behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, who does not get the recognition and acknowledgement that they should. We all are aware how positive a "job well done" pat on the back can be. Although we have a preference for newer editors, any under-recognized editor is eligible. So please make note of this, and present your nomination at: WP:EotW/N.Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Suggestion: The folks over at WER-Editor of the Week are looking for "a few good men (or women)". Nominations are being accepted for "Editor of the Week". The ideal candidate is an editor who works hard, possibly doing behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, who does not get the recognition and acknowledgement that they should. We all are aware how positive a "job well done" pat on the back can be. Although we have a preference for newer editors, any under-recognized editor is eligible. So please make note of this, and present your nomination at: WP:EotW/N. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I like Buster's wording much better and have substituted it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • You can send a check payable to Cash to Busters Bimini Beach-house, 1234 Ocean Drive, Some little island in the Pacific. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I realize that it is a quote of a movie title, but I think the phrase "good men (or women)" lacks balance, so it may be better to find a different wording. isaacl (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I am open to suggestion. You have something in mind? The reason I liked Buster's wording as opposed to mine is the catchy-ness of the movie phrase. My prior wording is in the history. Oh, wait...you are saying it is sexist, ya? If so, lets just sub "folks", my favorite unisex word. It is so homey and friendly! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Just remove the quotation marks and the parenthases and its a generic, balanced and asexual comment on what we're looking for.```Buster Seven Talk 02:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
I already put something at AN; it didn't go over to well...perhaps VPP? Go Phightins! 11:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I missed that discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Reviewing it now, it brings up the typical dilemma faced by all recognition programs: how to set them up so that the maximal benefit is achieved for everyone, including recipients, nominated but not accepted, and those not nominated. Right now I think a lot of trust is being placed in the nominator to name someone who meets the designated criteria, which minimizes the problem with an "Editor of the Week" clique exerting too much influence. As a result, the process may be susceptible to less than optimal nominations, but hopefully the focus on nominating someone for specific well-done tasks will help ensure that there is some good work being recognized, regardless of any other issues. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, if other people don't like our project, too bad for them. Maybe the best way is to simply plod along at a slow pace and allow others to find out about it gradually. However, I did leave a note about our project here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
For every editor that doesnt like it and says so there are 3 dozen that see it and will think its a great idea. I say keep "advertising" and the customers will come. Why does the image of Kevin Costner in a baseball uniform come to mind?```Buster Seven Talk 23:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The comments are reasonable ones that we have tried to take into account when setting up the procedures for receiving and processing nominations. It is worthwhile to keep these potential pitfalls in mind when any further refinements to the process are suggested. isaacl (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the process we have will work well...just witness the debate on Worm that we are currently having. Someone nominates, we dispassionately look through their records for recognition received and negative history and simply vote yea or nay. The debates we have had are whether a nom fits the criteria, not whether the nom is worthy of recognizing. That is an important difference. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

An idea while harvesting

  • [[Priming the Pump}}

Ive started to keep a look-out for likely EotW candidates as I wander around. So, lets say, I stumble upon an editor, a likely candidate, and I start to investigate his count and his edit distribution, his block/ban log, etc. I start to read and peruse his talk page and his archives, searching for an abundance of barnstars etc (in which case I move on) or a lack of recogniton (in which case I remain interested). Now comes the part I just realized this morning. While scanning and reading and wandering around an editors history, in many cases I become aware of fellow editors, friends and cohorts that work with them. Maybe a mentor that is proud of his student. Instead of ME writing up a nomination for someone I really don't know much about, why dont I suggest to User:GiantSnowman, as a for instance, that HE nominaate User:Alraedy Learning. I havent done it yet but I think its a good idea. The nomination will be more "real" more from the heart than anything I can come up with. I thought I would mention it here so that, if I go ahead with the idea, you guys knew about it first....```Buster Seven Talk 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea for candidates to be nominated by those they've had personal interactions with. Your first suggestion to GiantSnowman does reveal a potential pitfall, in that the nominee is likely to be watching the talk page of the potential nominator. Perhaps if you leave a talkback message to your own talk page and then put the request there, the possibility of prematurely notifying the nominee would be minimized? (Still a bit of a risk, but a lesser one.) isaacl (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
OOPPSS!! Exactly what you warn against has happened. But, I'll work thru it and know better the next time. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I wasn't prescient enough to warn against it—I was just relating what happened on GiantSnowman's talk page :-P. Also, by current procedure, nominators are supposed to be notified of the outcome of their nominations when the nomination is accepted or not. For accepted nominations, we could push this to be simultaneous with the presentation of the award; if we get to the point where there is a long backlog of recipients, the procedure could be revisited to see if the feedback loop to the nominator can be shortened. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the newer clerks could take on the responsiblity of notifying the nominator. (:-)..) It would create their active envolvement in the facilitating of the weekly award...and distribute the workload. Any volunteers? Thanks for watching over my shoulder at Snow/AL. Looking back, I really dont mind screw-ups like that because there are some pluses. 1) They create a different relationship than what would have been normally. 2) Editor AL, in his humble way, thinks he needs to be perfect to receive the award. We both know that is an impossible goal to strive for. But it gives us some insight. 3) Admin Snowman becomes aware of our project. I'm not saying I would do it again, I'm just saying I'm not unhappy with the way it turned out. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In the best case scenario, where there is no problem with the nomination, it doesn't really matter if the nominee gets a sneak peek at the process (yes, it takes away the surprise of getting the recognition, but it is replaced by the surprise of someone thinking you meet the criteria for nomination). The sticky scenario is for a poor nomination that ends up not getting accepted, where the nominee may become dissatisfied with the process. So just make sure your suggested nominees are beyond reproach ;-) isaacl (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We need to decide....

(moved from Nominations talk page by TheOriginalSoni (talk))
in preparation for who (?) in two weeks time. Editor Worm will be the second in Q after we award Coaltownguy this Sunday. I think we all agree that the premise of the award is acknowledgement of under-acknowledged editors. The nominee's premise is that Worm, while having high prestige and esteem in the community, is surprisingly under-acknowledged for his editing and adopting (as Gtw points out). My input is that we.... 1)honor the nominees effort to express thanks to a fellow editor, 2)that we don't tie our hands in that the nominations have to fit into a pre-conceived box (of OUR creation that the nominator is most likely not to be aware of), and 3) that we are not too strigent in our requirements. Eventually we will get an editor that does not fit the bill and that none of us are happy with. Let's wait for some circumstances like that before we reject a nomination. I'm for leaving Worm in the Q and awarding him 2 weeks from Sunday. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I can also endorse that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
My personal opinion stands that we have been recognising excellent work everywhere, and it will do good to us as a Project if we would, in our first few weeks, show excellent work in a diverse variety of fields. That ought to establish our main motive in this award - To recognize quality work in every field in Wikipedia. It also serves the further purpose of creating a good standard to look up to, inorder to make future nominations easier for the weeks to come.
Currently, we have recognized quality work in graphics, an all-round Wikipedian and a Wikipedian who creates a lot of stubs. I think it will be good if we recognize Worm after Coaltown (on the 3rd of February) - I think an administrator and a friendly Wikipedia will do good to enhance our variety. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess that's all right; I still would prefer we recognize the editors who get no recognition (as is Worm himself per that talk page archive link I provided above)... As an aside, is everyone all right with my banner proposal for CTG? Go Phightins! 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like
As previously discussed, an agreed-upon scope for this award has been set. It can certainly be revisited, but it seems a bit premature to do so. But if it is, it should be reflected in the specified criteria beforehand. Again, there are lots of ways to recognize editors; this is just one way, and I think it would be great to have an award that is specifically targeted for lesser known editors, and let other ways be used for the better known editors. (Recall the criteria for the award is not solely limited to article writing work, and so there isn't a need to parse the exact reasons for which an editor is well known.) isaacl (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Banner

(moved from Nominations talk page by TheOriginalSoni (talk))

Where's the banner? I think it might be a good idea if we keep a separate template where the next nominee's banners and infobox are designed. Just for insider discussion among the clerks to make sure everybody approves of it before it goes up TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Go Phightins!/sandbox/EOTW banner holding area sandbox --Go Phightins! 17:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Can we create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Banner sandbox for this purpose? I think it might be useful and sensible to move that page there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Also a Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page sandbox. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like ```Buster Seven Talk 01:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like--Amadscientist (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I've created Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/sandbox for drafting infoboxes for future Editors of the Week. I've also updated the administrative procedures to point to these sandboxes. isaacl (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Admins

(moved from Nominations talk page by TheOriginalSoni (talk))
Worms nomination is outside the criteria that "...an Editor of the Week is one that is not acknowledged". His nomination makes a case for the EotW clerks to set aside the criteria. But what if one of the rules was that an Administrator is not eligibile.. Why? They get plenty of accolades. They have the prestige of accomplishment. We may pretend that they are just everyday editors but that is not the case.```Buster Seven Talk 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Go Phightins! 21:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As a general principle, I don't think it is necessary to single out administrators, but since in practice it's unlikely an administrator hasn't already received some personal thank you's, I can agree with making non-admins the targets for this recognition.
On a side note, if threads continue to open up beneath this heading, it will never archive; in accordance with my suggestion on WT:EotW, can this page be kept just to discussions of each individual nomination, and other discussions held on WT:EotW? isaacl (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the change I just did should work. But shouldnt some of the first nominations (above) already have been archived?. I know we discussed archiving weeks ago. Was that this page? ```Buster Seven Talk 00:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know why it hasn't; maybe the archiving bot hasn't gotten around to checking this page yet. Regarding these process-related discussions, I just think it will be easier if they are all held on WT:EotW and archived in one place. isaacl (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could all the talk page stuff be simply moved to the EotW main talk page? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it is useful to keep the discussions for individual nominations in a separate archive, for easy searching. (If you are just referring to the process-related discussions, yes, if there is agreement, we can implement my suggestion.) isaacl (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW: I agree with Isaacl--Guerillero | My Talk 17:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

benzband this week?

(moved from Nominations talk page by TheOriginalSoni (talk))

Is our lucky winner benzband for this week? If so, I will write up a banner, provided there is no objection. Go Phightins! 16:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Correct you are, sir!!!". I will move Admin Worm down a notch come Monday as is our agreement until There is a solid consensus one way or the other since the admin restriction was implemented AFTER Worm's nomination. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Everyone all right with what I put in the sandbox? Go Phightins! 16:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Go Phightins! 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/Archive_1&oldid=1160941448"