Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2015

Overview

The project coordinators are responsible for maintaining the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. They are the designated points of contact for procedural issues and are responsible for ensuring that the project as a whole is properly informed of them.

To provide some examples of coordinator duties: the coordinators manage the proposal and creation of new task forces; ensure that project announcement and task lists are kept up-to-date; initiate drafting of guidelines needed by the project; organize the category system; oversee the recruitment of new members, including the use of project notices and other advertising methods; create and maintain collaborative projects if any; maintain the project page and the various guidelines in it in a clean and easy-to-use state; monitor technical policies and ensure that project templates satisfy them; and assist in organizing and promoting any Backlog Elimination Drives.

They are also expected to generally assist project members with any questions or concerns.

The coordinator positions do not entail any executive power.

Positions

• Lead Coordinator (one open position): will have overall responsibility for procedural and administrative matters within the project.

• Assistant Coordinator (three open positions): will assist the Lead Coordinator by focusing on specific areas within the project that require special attention. These areas will be selected based on need and interest among the coordinators.

Election process

• The nomination period will run from December 01, 00:01 UTC, until December 15, 23:59 UTC.
• The election process will run for two weeks, from December 16, 00:01 UTC, until December 31, 23:59 UTC.
• Any member of the project may nominate themselves for either position by creating a new section under Nominations below and copying the sample form below. Nominees only interested in one position should indicate this when adding their names. Candidates need not make extensive statements if they do not wish to do so.
• The elections will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support a nominee for either position. If the nominee is running for both positions and you wish to support them for only one, please make a note to that effect as part of your vote.
• Project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or to make general comments.

How to vote

1. Find the Nominations section. Click/tap "edit" in the subsection titled Support.
2. In the edit window, place a hash symbol # on a new line beneath the extant votes/comments.
3. Type a short supporting sentence (optional).
4. End your post with four tildes ~~~~

Incumbents

Name	Position	Standing for re-election?
Jonesey95 (talk)	Lead	Coordinator, but not Lead
Baffle gab1978 (talk)	Coordinator	No (planned wikibreak)
Miniapolis (talk)	Coordinator	Can do lead if needed

Sample nomination

Editor's Username

Example (talk · contribs) • Interested in Assistant position only.

Brief statement here

Nominations

Biblioworm

Biblioworm (talk · contribs) • Interested in Assistant position only.

Well, here I am; your first standing candidate. I began to think about this when I saw the notice go up, and I ultimately decided to run. For everyone's information, I am very well aware that I would probably be the newest Wikipedian to be elected as a coordinator if I were to succeed, and furthermore, I know that my chance of success is very low (if not 0%), but I felt that there would be no harm if I just put my name out there.
So, why do I think that I would be a good coordinator? First of all, I am quite used to doing bot-like behind the scenes work, which is what GOCE coordinators primarily do. I'm fairly active in anti-vandalism and deletion work here, and I also have a good amount of gnome experience over at another wiki, where I fix reference errors, create redirects, and service title change requests. Second, I enjoy copyediting, the work that the coordinators oversee. In November's drive, I copyedited a total of 10 articles and 35,000 words, including Theodore Roosevelt, which is on our most popular article list. Third, my relative "newness" might actually be beneficial, as I might be able to bring fresh outlooks to a job that most people probably consider to be dull.
Thank you for your consideration. --Biblioworm 00:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. New blood is good! Miniapolis 02:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
2. I think you'll make a good assistant coordinator, and I'm sure you'll get plenty of help from the others when needed. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
3. What they ^^ said. Archolman User talk:Archolman 23:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
4. I've seen your thoughtful ideas-generation elsewhere. Glad to have you here. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
5. I'm sure you will make a great coordinator. Tdslk (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Thanks for standing for election. You seem interested and active, and I'm sure you'll do a fine job.--Slon02 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support from a fellow book worm!--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Best to you and onward GOCE! ˘ | ˘ Hwajae^{talk • contribs} 07:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

Questions from Baffle gab1978

1. Hi Biblioworm, thank you for standing for election as a GOCE coordinator. It's great to see a new-ish editor getting involved here. I'm glad you have experience on other Wiki projects to draw on, and I think your anti-vandal work will have given you a thick skin! You'll be glad to know this is generally a low-drama project, though there are some complexities involved in the behind-the-scenes work. Many of the tasks are routine (request archiving, progress updates, etc), they're not always bot-like and sometimes need some human input. Sometimes you may need to make decisions for the benefit of the whole project that might upset individual editors (reviewing drive/blitz copyedits, vetting requests etc). If elected, you'll have two very experienced coordinators and the coordinators emeriti to guide you. I'll be happy help too if I'm around.
   • My first question is: which areas and tasks of the project are you most likely to be involved in? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
     • Well, I've looked at the list of tasks, and I would see myself being involved in almost all of those, as time allows. On a more regular basis, though, I would probably keep an eye on the requests page and do some QC checks during drives/blitzes to make sure that people aren't doing a bad job just to get the points. --Biblioworm 03:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks, that's good to know. I suggest reading some of the project's talk pages, especially Requests talk, to see the kind of problems you'll be dealing with there; they're a useful glimpse at what goes on behind the scenes. Some issues don't have an "out-of-the-box" solution and it's good to be aware of what's gone before. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

2. Guild copy editor User Z answers a request from User A posted on the Request page to copy-edit an article. After two hours' work, User B reverts User Z's copy edits to a previous version. User Z investigates the article's edit history and both users' talk pages, and finds that User A and User B have been edit-warring over the article, leading to User A filing a report at AN/I accusing User B of ownership issues. How should User Z act in this situation? This is an analogy of an actual, fairly recent occurrence; I'm asking because it's the kind of (thankfully rare) situation you could find yourself dealing with. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

   (I think you're probably talking about this.) Well, in this case, the article is obviously unsuitable for copy editing due to stability issues, so I would simply discontinue the copy edit and possibly consider relisting the article when everything had settled down. --Biblioworm 04:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks for your answer; I'm glad to see you've been reading Guild talk pages. Is there anything else User Z should do in this case? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

   I honestly can't think of anything else, except perhaps pointing the edit warriors to dispute resolution. --Biblioworm 01:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

   User Z should a) open a discussion on Requests-talk and b) announce on the request that they've abandoned the c/e. I did push the point a little, and that was probably unfair of me. It's not the most obvious thing to know, but the Requests page instructions does say: "If you have accepted a request but cannot fulfill it for any reason, please amend it with a note of the sections you have completed so that someone else can complete the copy edit". I'm going to amend that instruction. Thanks for answering; I hope you don't think I'm badgering you here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Questions from DThomsen8

1. Please tell me about your handle here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
   • @Dthomsen8: Could you please clarify what you mean by "handle"? I'm assuming that you're asking about my knowledge of how things work around here, but I just want to make sure so that I can give a good answer. --Biblioworm 22:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

   Handle means your Wikipedia name, Biblioworm.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. (My mind tends to be blurry around the evenings; I should have just looked it up in the dictionary.) I chose this username because I am very interested in reading. Although my originally desired username ("Bookworm") was taken, I discovered that "Biblioworm" was not, so I decided to take that one instead. --Biblioworm 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Miniapolis

Miniapolis (talk · contribs) • Interested in either position.

I'd like to thank Biblioworm very much for volunteering as coordinator, Baffle gab for their hard work as coordinator and Jonesey (our outgoing lead coordinator) for their diligence in streamlining the award-barnstar process. I think WP is an eminently worthwhile endeavor (as we all do, or we wouldn't be here), but a legitimate criticism leveled against it is its prose quality. Although what we do is important for the encyclopedia's long-term viability, I've seen a steady drop in GOCE involvement in the four years since I joined the Guild. Part of the reason, paradoxically, may be an overemphasis on contests; although the bimonthly backlog-reduction drives have made great strides, I think the blitzes have ended up diverting attention from the requests page. The Guild's job is twofold: to reduce the backlog of copyedit-tagged articles (benefiting WP as a whole) and to help individual, high-visibility articles reach GA and FA (improving the 'pedia's reputation for prose quality). I hope to see more candidates before the nominations close in a few days; while I don't mind pitching in on the administrative side of the Guild, I joined it for assistance from fellow copyeditors and won't let coordinating the project keep me from copyediting. If you have the time and the inclination, please help Jonesey, Biblioworm and me continue the good fight. All the best, Miniapolis 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. With your copy-editing and backroom experience at the Guild, I think you'll make a fine lead coordinator. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support for lead. Ideal candidate. Thanks for standing. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Tons of experience and a steady hand. Would make a great lead! Tdslk (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support for lead. From what I can see, you've been a good coordinator in your past terms, and I'm sure you'll be a good lead. --Biblioworm 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Seems like you'd make a good lead coordinator. You have my support.--Slon02 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support for lead. I'm a fairly new Wikipedia copy editor and have participated in two blitzes. The short turnaround actually forces me to focus on the editing process. However, it does feel rushed, especially since I'm not always familiar with the article topic and there usually seem to be other issues with the articles. I look forward to learning more about your ideas for improving the copy editing process and increasing the quality of Wikipedia articles. ˘ | ˘ Hwajae^{talk • contribs} 07:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

Questions from Baffle gab1978

1. Hi Minapolis, thank you for standing for re-election, and for your work during three terms as assistant coordinator. You've been a steady hand at the Guild, and a hardworking and skilled copy-editor and coordinator. You've shown a calm, rational approach to some potentially trying situations. I'm sure you'll continue showing these qualities in your Guild work.
   • My first question: Do you have any specific plans you'd like to implement if you're elected as Lead coordinator?

   Hi, Baffle, and thanks for asking (and for the great job reworking the project pages). About the only change I would consider making is to discontinue (if only temporarily) the blitzes—not because I particularly dislike them (although last August is still relatively fresh in my mind :-)), but because at the moment we don't seem to have the horses to do a good job. They seem to divert attention from the requests page, which is starting to lengthen again and is dear to my heart because there we can really collaborate with editors trying for a GA or an FA. Such a change would require consensus, of course, but we could always revive the blitzes if there's increased interest. One thing that bugs me is the number of editors who sign up for a drive or a blitz and don't do a single article; although sometimes life happens, a long participant list doesn't always translate into a lot of work done. All the best, Miniapolis 22:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, it's appreciated. I do understand your frustration with the blitzes, and August was a strange one. I can see their potential for attracting newer editors and regulars who might like to compete in a short-term contest. Blitzes have never atrracted the same degree of participation as drives; August 2013 attracted 14 participants, of which 5 didn't book any articles. I'd be sad to see them ended, but c'est la vie. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Think they'll still be around when you get back, Baffle, since I seem to be the only curmudgeon who doesn't care for them :-). All the best, Miniapolis 02:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not the only one. Even though I have never participated in one (I don't ever plan to, either), I would fully support getting rid of the blitzes. In my opinion, they encourage rushing. "Do as many copyedits as you can in a week and earn barnstars!" is a fantastic recipe for promoting poor quality. The drives are better, since one month is a rather substantial period of time. --Biblioworm 03:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonesey95

Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) • Interested in Coordinator position (not lead).

I have been the Lead Coordinator for the past year. I would like to continue as a Coordinator but hand off the Lead position to someone else, perhaps someone with a bit more vision or who wants to institute some positive changes.

I edit quite a bit on WP these days, and I love copy editing, so I see involvement in the Guild as valuable. I have found that I prefer to work as a gnome, fixing citations and cleaning up templates, with occasional copy editing as a brain-stimulating break from this sometimes mind-numbing work. I enjoy working on the administrative end of the Guild, making sure the drives and blitzes are set up and working, tracking daily progress, answering questions, and resolving technical issues. If re-elected, I will continue to do so over the next six months.

And, if you looking for actual accomplishments, I will toot my own horn a bit by saying that I just created {{GOCE award}}, which turned the post-Drive barnstar delivery process from a multi-hour slog into fifteen minutes of easy editing.

Questions are welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Questions from Baffle gab1978

1. Hi Jonesey, I'm glad that you're standing for election again; thank you for serving as Lead coordinator for the past year. I think you've been a thoughtful, steady and diplomatic lead coordinator. The GOCE award template is a thing of beauty. Aside from assisting with day-to-day Guild affairs, do you have an specific Guild plans for the next term? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

   This will sound like an ingratiating answer, given the questioner, but it's the truth. I am planning to work on more Requests, and I would like to follow up on the great job you did in cleaning up our pages by creating a better way for coordinators to manage the daily/weekly/monthly tasks – some sort of checklist that has been brewing in my mind for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. With many thanks for your fine job as lead coordinator. Miniapolis 02:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Ditto; you've been a fine lead and I'm glad you're sticking around. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Thanks for your year as lead, especially for your skills at keeping the atmosphere friendly, constructive and drama-free. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
4. You've done steady grunt work as the lead, and would be a fine assistant coordinator as well. Tdslk (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Thanks for all the work you've done for the GOCE. --Biblioworm 22:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support for you to continue all of the great work you've done.--Slon02 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
7. I've learned a lot from you in my relatively short experience as a Wikipedia editor and am glad to support you. ˘ | ˘ Hwajae^{talk • contribs} 07:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Philg88

Philg88 (talk · contribs) • Interested in Assistant position only.

Brief statement here

I have been involved with GOCE since 2009 and have received a number of drive related awards including the The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star. As some project participants are already aware, aside from pure copyediting, my interest lies in quality control to ensure that drives deliver what they are supposed to.

Support

1. Great to have four coordinators and an extra mop for housekeeping. Miniapolis 02:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
2. I think you'll make a good coordinator. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Good luck! Archolman User talk:Archolman 23:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
4. All the best! Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Great to see your interest in QC. Thanks for standing. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Another fine candidate. Tdslk (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
7. I'm sure you'll be a good, level-headed coordinator. Looking forward to working with you. --Biblioworm 22:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Looks like you'd be a fine coordinator, and you have a good history with our project.--Slon02 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
9. Happy to give you my support. ˘ | ˘ Hwajae^{talk • contribs} 07:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

Questions from Baffle gab1978;

1. Hi Phil88, thank you for standing as a Coordinator; I've seen your name as a prolific copy-editor in Drives and Blitzes. You're also an administrator, which bodes well for a calm, considerate approach to editing, and a considerable knowledge of Wikipedia and Guild processes.
   • If elected as a Coordinator, which areas and tasks of the Guild are you most likely to be involved in? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
     • Thanks for the question Baffle gab1978. Let me deal with drives first. As previously discussed, I think we need to up our ante in the drive QC stakes. As a result, in conjunction with the other co-ordinators, I would spend some time on guideline implementation for the QC process and actually do the necessary reviewing when the need arises. In wider terms, I am willing to help with the overall administration of the guild, and take a more active role in the day-to-day ce request process. I hope that answers your question but please shout if you require further elaboration.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks, Phil, for volunteering to address the copyedit-quality issue; I prefer that phrase, because to me QC sounds too much like a factory :-). Although I get as exasperated as anyone with sloppy work (especially the move-three-commas-on-an-FAC-and-call-it-done kind—to me, that's gaming the system), I went back to the original discussion and agree with Lfstevens and Tdslk there that we need to tread softly. We're all volunteers, and if we want more warm bodies here (which we need), good-faith editors shouldn't feel as if their best efforts are unappreciated. All the best, Miniapolis 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

   Agreed Miniapolis. I'm not suggesting anything draconian, just a way to keep people on the straight and narrow. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks for your answer, Phil. I too agree that QC (CQ?) is an area that needs attention, so thank you for offering your time. As you probably know, I've already upset a regular drive participant in November by giving him/her a mediocre c/e review. Nobody likes to be told they've done a poor job, and I'm sure you'll be more diplomatic in that task than I was in that instance. ;-). We certainly need more people coordinating drives and blitzes, so thanks again. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Questions from Chaosdruid;

The drive coordinators used to do the checks for accuracy as part of their routine jobs. I am surprised to find it being said that this has lapsed. QC was done to 1. check that the word counts were accurate 2. ensure that any obviously bad editing was dealt with 3. ensure ce was at a level appropriate to the prose of the article. If you are standing to promote the QC of GOCE copyedits by questioning and scrutiny of edits made by GOCE members - by policing all edits rather than simply ensuring drive accuracy - my questions are:

1. What level of oversight do you feel is appropriate during drives, and in non-drive copy-edits, on edits made by GOCE members?
2. What would you say to someone who had CEd a B class article, but appeared to only have the skills for basic copyediting and, while improving the prose, had made changes that were correct by Mos, but not by the project's own MoS? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the question, Chaosdruid. I am not advocating the policing of all edits, just that we have a clearly understood mechanism for reviewing per the previous discussion I referenced above. In terms of your numbered questions:

1. A minimum of 10% of edits are checked according to agreed criteria.
2. A request carried out through the GOCE request process is slightly different to one done as part of a drive/blitz. In the latter case there is no deduction of word count where a request is poorly executed. The specific example that you cite would involve leaving an explanatory message on the talk page of the editor in question and clean-up of the target article.

Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I was asking about "during drives" for both questions, but I guess there would not be many B class articles with a copyediting tag on them! :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Current time is 17:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)