Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week

WER Project main pageEditor of the WeekCurrent NominationsNominations talk pageAccepted NominationsHall of FameRecipient responseTalk

Church of St Mary the Great

KylieTastic

Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 12, 2024

An expert "back of WikiProject Articles for creation queue reviewers" that handles all the hard drafts. Without editors like this, AFC would grind to a halt. Over 12,000 edits to their AfC log page, including processing over 1,000 drafts so far this year, indicates how much they do. One of WikiPedia's most consistent and best AfC reviewers, they are not just taking the easy accepts and declines. They are often working requests from the back of the queue and dealing with the more difficult drafts that others have passed over.

Recognized for

patience, understanding, and a willingness to assist newer editors

Submit a nomination

Requested move 24 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: proposal withdrawn(non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week → Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Wikipedian of the Week – Change name to Wikipedian of the Week in order to harmonise with Wikipedian of the Year, predatingly founded in 2011 by Jimmy Wales. I would say Jimmy Wales picked the more suitable term, Wikipedian arguably being a more catch-all and more activity-independent term than that of "editor" for a contributing user. Thus highlighting this reward being a little bit of an equivalent albeit strictly by the collective Wikipedia community. For context, see list in Wikipedia:Awards. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week initiative is unrelated to the Wikipedian of the Year, with considerably different criteria. Editor of the Week is focused on recognizing good everyday work by editors. Thus I do not believe it is suitable to rename the Editor of the Week recognition. isaacl (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't really have any opinions on the matter, but it is probably worth noting that there are 253 subpages of the Hall of Fame, and about another 30 that would need to be renamed. It's not like that should keep us from changing things, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to do all those moves. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I would note that (with only a couple exceptions that I have seen) this is presented for a persons editing of articles. A person can be WotY for other activities like admin work, DRN etc. MarnetteD|Talk 23:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think it's appropriate to show up at a project to which you don't contribute and suggest that they change their name. Lepricavark (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Having been the helmsman to the good ship Editor of the Week for upwards of five years I must say that I am always taken aback by those who want to step in and make changes where they have never visited before. There is no reason or need to harmonize into Wikipedian of the Week. Editor speaks exactly to the gifts and attributes of those 250 individuals that have received the award. and there is no more suitable term than Editor for those that will receive the award in the future. ―Buster7 ☎ 07:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This certainly seems like a solution in search of a problem. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I might add that even if this proposal made any sense, which it doesn't, it is about 5 years late. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is very heartening that Buster7 and others have kept this going since we founded it several years ago. This has nothing to do with Jimmy Wales and everything to do with recognizing everyday contributors who go above and beyond. Go Phightins! 19:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It looks more suitable to me, for the two seem completely different. As stated by MarnetteD, WotY may work for admin activities, but EotW is more about content creation. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose EoW and WoY have nothing in common. EoW is an en.Wiki project. As far as I know, WoY is a cross Wiki honour drawn on all Wikimedia projects and takes into account off-Wiki work for the movement. Bestowed (or announced ) by the Founder, I guess it's a pretty important award. However, not to belittle the admirable leadership demonstrated by Buster's meticulous micromanaging of EoW where for the rest, Dennis's WER has all but petered out. People often breeze into a project they have previously not been part of and want to change everything - I see it all the time in the areas where I have been at the helm for years - and of course it's not really an appropriate thing to do despite the enthusiasm that sometimes comes with it. As John says, it's a solution looking for a problem and I look forward to supporting Buster and his teamm in keeping things as they are for a long time to come. EoW is one of the nice things about the en.Wiki, let's not muck it about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The picture seems clear; maintain the preexisting name. Just an intentional improvement proposal coming from little detail knowledge into the matter while investigating the context around it. Sorry for disturbing! Thanks for your contributions and keep up the good work! Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Member and Coordinator List

The following is a withdrawn proposal/discussion by the original poster. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing of the discussion can simply undo the closing.

Hello all,

It was recently brought to my attention (via IRC) that there are two member and co-ordinator lists: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members and Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Members. This is particularly confusing for those involved in the project. I propose the following:

1. Keep all of the member and co-ordinator information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members.
2. Add any unique entries in the member list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Members to the member list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members (time-stamp order).
3. Add any active co-ordinators from Dennis's post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members to the co-ordinator list Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Members, put that list where Dennis's post was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members, and either hat (below the current/updated co-ordinator list) Dennis's note or move Dennis's note to the bottom of that page.

Best regards,

JustBerry (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Buster7 Isaacl Lepricavark Mark Miller John Carter (blocked as of posting) Go Phightins! Doctree Adjwilley SlimVirgin As a courtesy, I am pinging any listed co-ordinators (in the event that you are not already following this page). Also, feel free to comment on if you wish/do not wish to continue co-ordinating for this project. --JustBerry (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe everyone who expressed interested in the Editor of the Week recognition initiative should also be compelled to state interest in the Editor Retention wiki project, or vice versa. Thus I don't feel the two sets of lists should be combined. Furthermore, it's more important for people to chip in and help out; the names on lists are secondary. (Witness your earlier proposal about to-do lists; unless someone's expressed interest in following up week after week, it isn't going to go anywhere.) isaacl (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl: My aim was to clear up a confusion that had come up earlier on IRC. Thanks for reminding that the two projects are distinct. --JustBerry (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

While the Editor of the Week is indeed organized as an editor retention initiative, it comes down to people can be interested in one without being interested in the other. I don't know what was discussed on IRC, so can't comment on it. (As previously discussed, it's unnecessary to ping me on this page.) isaacl (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion on IRC was informal, but the confusion regarding the two different listings brought them to my attention. And, yes, I had forgotten that you do follow this page; it's been some time, hasn't it? --JustBerry (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note I didn't mean to re-open the conversation; it was just an edit conflict at the time. Feel free to close it again if you like. isaacl (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page.

Nominations archive

Regarding the archiving of nominations: to-date we haven't done this, essentially because the initiative is biased towards accepting nominations by default. Thus a nomination archive would just replicate the Hall of Fame. Although I can think of some specific cases where an archive might be useful, so far they haven't come up, and I think it may be just unnecessary overhead at this point. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Projects usually archive past work in case they need to refer back to it, rather than deleting it and hunting for it later. It's only one click if using a user script. There isn't a mandate regarding one has to archive, but I don't see the harm in doing so for future reference. @Buster7: (I don't know if WER pages are on your watchlist by default as well.) Thoughts? --JustBerry (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with this approach. Nonetheless, personally I feel that the benefit gained is not worth the effort (there is a distinct shortage of volunteers). isaacl (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the archive notice from both nomination pages and marked both archive pages for deletion (at least until a few more editors have chimed in). I can see your reasoning for the accepted nominations page. For the current nominations page, perhaps we should at least keep a list of users that have declined their nomination with a diff linking to their declining (see Buster7's comment on Gerda's being nominated three times). --JustBerry (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it will be helpful to keep track of those who have declined to receive the recognition (there is one person who disagreed with the Editor of the Week idea and so refused the recognition, and others like Gerda who prefer to let someone else have it). isaacl (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Reworked todo

For those of you who may have found working through the todolist a bit tedious in the past, Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/todo/weekly should now seem simplified and better formatted with the new preload functionality and templating. Feedback is welcome! --JustBerry (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your changes, are you planning to keep the to-do list up to date each week? I'm a bit concerned that if you find other priorities in a couple of weeks, as happened a year ago, then there'll be a stale to-do list right on the main Editor of the Week page. isaacl (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your concern is valid, as life doesn't stay the same. Well, it will definitely help either myself or anyone else who will potentially get involved in doing these tasks. One would hope that I did not invest a significant amount of time into nothing. I can certainly see a measurable efficiency gain in the process; having preloaded templates, linked talk pages, linked date-customized template infobox pages, etc. (just by changing a few parameters at the head of the to-do list) is pretty convenient. Hopefully, we will have a few new people interested in tweaking the project from time to time to keep things less stale. Last week Buster7 was traveling; having a backup person ensuring that all of the tasks get done (on time) was helpful. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If you could respond to the question, it would help clarify if your investment in the to-do list was worthwhile. If you aren't planning to keep it up to date, then it's a bit presumptuous to give those who haven't expressed any interest in a to-do list the task of maintaining it. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

JB. Not wanting to sound at all un-appreciative, I must say that I find the to-do list completely unnecessary and burdensome. I'm thankful that you have come onboard and have brought fresh ideas and a vigor for change. But... Let me take this moment to say... I'm 70 years old. I've edited WP for 10 years now and my interests have dwindled to managing the Editor of the Week awards. It's pretty much the only Wikipedian thing I do now. As you start to do more and more of the daily chores for EotW, my purpose for being here lessens. The changes that came about thru your input (and the other tech savvy editor whose name I forgot) last year really helped the process of awarding. They were a welcome addition. The to-do list is not. In plain English... I don't think Isaacl or I need a to-do list. We've done pretty well without one for years.―Buster7 ☎ 13:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's unappreciative of you. You're telling the truth, which I absolutely appreciate. I must say that the to-do list may not look as convenient as it really is given its table-like structure (I mentioned some of the pros in my reply to Isaacl's comment right above). At least the list isn't interfering with the project; whoever finds it inconvenient can push it aside.

I agree; I don't think your dedication to the project can be highlighted enough, and this is certainly reflected in some of the comments on the WP:WER talk page as well. I don't think having more hands around should feel like a loss of purpose to you; I think that shows that what you are doing is perceived as valuable to the community, i.e. the fact that people want to get involved. If you are saying that you would not like other people to help out with the weekly tasks, I'm a bit puzzled why that would be the case (I could not tell exactly where you were going with this, so if you could please elaborate on this, that would be helpful). --JustBerry (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't looked that closely at the to-do list before... Having each task as a separate page that gets transcluded seems like overkill, as well as having a separate page for the recipient name and the week which is only used in the weekly to-do list itself. As I've said before, though, since I'm not doing the week-to-week tasks, whatever those doing the awarding decide upon is fine. But... as of yet, it's still Buster7 doing most of the chores, so an approach that works well with his workflow is needed. And based on those who have helped out before, virtually no overhead is better. The important part about co-ordinating is talking about who's doing what, so each contributor can plan ahead accordingly. isaacl (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Isaacl, I agree with the fact that having each task on a separate page has an inconvenience; I did have to think about this for a bit. Here was my thought process. It's harder to manage a todo page with a bunch of text. The idea here is that the tasks are assumed to be pretty much set in stone from week to week, so any changes would presumably be infrequent and minor; hence, such changes would not require the task itself to be easily editable. The idea for having a separate page for the recipient name and week is to have them function as parameters. The week parameter is used in the "create" link in the third task, the "edit" link in the fourth task, the text in the eighth task, and the text in the ninth task. The username parameter is used in the "recipient's talk page" link in the third task, the "new section" link in the fourth task, the "find" link in the sixth task, the "recipient's talk page" link in the tenth task, and "new section" link in the tenth task. Two parameters edited; nine entities generated. This reduces the overhead of finding each page by typing out the date and username repeatedly, flipping between different pages while trying to figure out which page is needed for which task, and figuring out which task needs to be done when; this time can certainly be used in more creative pursuits like planning some of the initiatives raised at WP:WER.

Now, I can feel a question emerging. 'If Buster7 has been, is in, and most probably will be in the groove of maintaining the project, why should we introduce a more foreign system when the editor primarily responsible for the weekly tasks thus far is already used to their own system.'

Buster7, feel free to use the system that works for you. It's not unappreciative of you to not use the todo, and there's certainly no offense taken. It is completely understandable. You have a system that works for you, so why should we change it to something more foreign?

There's a long run consideration to be made, though. In the long view, a project reliant on a few dedicated individuals may not be optimal as it seems; life happens, and those not involved in the project are left out of touch with its mission and inner workings. Let us examine WP:WER. Dennis had to become inactive due to life circumstances. The project did face a gradual, but noticeable, increase in inactivity after this happened. As Kudpung has noted, it is hard to raise a project from the ashes. Let us examine WP:EOTW. Buster7 noted that the 'cupboard' (the nominations) was bear. A mass message to members is good, but having editors involved in the inner workings of the project (understanding the how and why it works) gives them a chance to understand, internalize, appreciate, and reciprocate the importance of the project, keeping it alive, important, and relevant. One of the aspects of the weekly tasks is to reach out to the awarded editor with the initial notification template and follow up with their customized 'Eddybox.' It's often the engagement in that task and hearing back from the editor that lets the notifier sit back and appreciate the project. Let's make it clearer and easier for newcomers to understand the process in small, digestible bits. Let's find a more distributive approach, in which the health of the project is not at the stake of one or a small number of editors. --JustBerry (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)