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

Archive 1

User:Kelvinsong

Reviewing Kelvinsong's contributions to Wikipedia commons, I agree that the artwork is an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that he's done some good work, we don't often recognize those who produce graphics, so let's start here. Go Phightins! 11:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Kelvinsong is a good choice. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think on Sunday we ought to post the banner on his talk and announce him as our first editor of the week. Objections? Go Phightins! 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And as stated before somewhere Sunday Eve becomes our posting date. I'll be travelling so I will not be able to but best wishes to whomever does the deed. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I posted the stuff on his talk page. We have an Editor of the Week! Go Phightins! 21:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Coal town guy

I agree with the nomination of Coal town guy, his contributions in article creations should be recognized here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I nominated him because his prodigious output alone is deserving of recognition. A few of his articles he himself has raised to "Start" status or higher; others have done a few more. But I am really big fan of the gazetteer function of Wikipedia and am glad for all his work.Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We should probably determine who will get to be EOTW next week. Coal Town Guy? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct you are sir! Coal Town Guy is next in line. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone all right with the banner? Go Phightins! 02:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ilikeit! Thanks GP! Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done EOTW #3

User:EricEnfermero

Looking over this editors contributions I find an editor hard at work on the minutia, busy fine-tuning the Ency. A good choice. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've worked with Eric before and yes, he is dedicated to improving the encyclopedia however possible. Good choice. Go Phightins! 11:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done

User:Benzband

As a proxy for the actual nominator, Editor Guillermo, I support this nomination. Active and problem-free.```Buster Seven Talk 02:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the nomination as well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Endorsed!Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Wetman

Wetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One of the 400 most active editors, Wetman has created almost a decade of quality contributions. His diplomatic ability has been honed on the talk pages of hundreds of articles. An editor of varied interests and pursuits, he is rarely reverted and has an unblemished block log. Of his 86,666 edits 76.89% are to the article space. He has created 2270 articles like Jean-André Lepaute. Nominated by User:Ryan Vesey 13:20 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support this nomination. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorsed. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Bleaney

• I support this nomination. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also support nomination; recent contributions show many diligent edits that improve Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• endorsed, with an extra star for diversity as all of the winners so far have been american. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Another Believer

• I support this nomination ```Buster Seven Talk 17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also support nomination; seems to be congenial in interactions with other editors. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, amazing editor.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• endorsed, and an interesting note, he is a member of wikiproject awards and prizes, so it might help publicity. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Deb

Support nomination; recent contributions include lots of tidy-up work that, taken together with everyone's small efforts, build a better encyclopedia. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• endorsed. this gnome work is what i feel we need to single out. someone who might see my ee cummings like use of capitalization and fix it! lol... Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Worm That Turned

• Although Worm is a very experienced and accomplished editor, I feel that he fits the criteria for this award as most of what he does is behind the scenes. Not only is he a superb adopter, but his adoption program is the basis for many, if not most of the other adopters here. Thoroughly endorsed. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Although the focus of this award is the under appreciated editors, I do tend to agree with Gtwfan52. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How can I do anything less than support the nomination of "the greatest Wikipedian there is today". While our focus must remain under-acknowledged editors, we should not confine ourselves. Worm deserves the Award. I am going to place him in the "Q"```Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

While I agree, Worm did say here that he would rather people give awards to those other than him, particularly the kind of editors we target here. Go Phightins! 13:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two sections with that title; just scroll to the bottom of the page. Go Phightins! 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My concern with awarding it to Worm is this: we are trying to recognized under-appreciated editors who don't get a lot of recognition for their work; Worm, for whom I have all the respect in the world and rightfully receives this recognition, already is well-recognized. I don't think he is or should be our target for this award. Go Phightins! 20:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Go Phightins!; as of now, the criteria for this award is to target lesser known editors. I suggest giving Worm That Turned an appropriate recognition barnstar, Editor of the Day, or a personal thank you note, all of which would be well deserved. isaacl (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to go on record with my statement, I would like to state that our focus is "Under-appreciated editors" and that includes well-known and established editors who do not get the recognition they deserve. While he is certainly well known, our project is aimed to give the praise to those who recieved less that what they ought to have, which is certainly the case with Worm here. I completely believe we ought not to restrict ourselves by denying it to Worm. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Diiscool

• Definitely endorse this editor for recognition. Just the patience to work long-term at a political article is more than enough, but this editor has written on a wide variety of transportation related subjects, and worked in one of the more esoteric areas of vandalism patrol, handling improper Brit/American English changes. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'll second the motion (figuratively speaking). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done

User:Sagaciousphil

Support nomination; reviewing the user's talk page and Talk:Kangal Dog#Discussion re photos.2C height.2C weight and info box confirms the description of the editor's positive attitude. isaacl (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Glad to support this "young" editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Editor Sagaciousphil has been relocated to the Accepted Nomination page. Feel free to include your support or comment here.

User:BlueMoonset

Support; the leaven that makes a beneficial project rise. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support: BlueMoonset is a tireless editor, attentive and thorough. The Interior (Talk) 22:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Editor BlueMoonset has been relocated to the Accepted Nomination page. Feel free to include your support or comment here.

Moved discussions to the main talk page

Hello,

Just so we do not have two different places where we discuss things, I have boldly moved all active discussions from this page to the main EoTW talk page. All archives are there as they are (If somebody thinks they should be also moved, please do so.)

If anyone disagrees with my moving, please revert.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Always Learning

• Works well with other editors @ Football related articles. Support""". ```Buster Seven Talk 14:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• 60k+ edits on articles alone? Wow. Certainly looks like an editor dedicated at his job! Support. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Editor Always Learning has been relocated to the Accepted Nomination page. Feel free to include your support or comment here.

User:Go Phightins!

Support: An editor with a plan; to do whatever he can for the Encyclopedia and fellow editors.```Buster Seven Talk 02:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as Go Phightins! has been heavily involved in this program, I think it will look too much like a vanity exercise for Go Phightins! to be recognized in this way. I suggest that the nominator find an appropriate barnstar to present and leave a personal note of appreciation. isaacl (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same but wanted to at least give credit where credit is due. Perhaps GoP!, in the spirit of Gerda Arent, will forego his nomination. I still support his efforts but I am willing to table my support for the good name of the project. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! How did I miss this in my watchlist until now? I certainly appreciate the sentiment and it means a lot to me to be nominated, but obviously I can't receive the award I helped create. Go Phightins! 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Plus... consider all the time you will save by NOT having to add all kinds of gold filigree, ermine, heraldic escutcheons and colorful gems to the banner and then having to compose a dazzling soliloquy for your infobox. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's be honest; I don't have the technical skills to update the infobox . Go Phightins! 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Editor GoPhightins! has gracefully declined the nomination

User:Surtsicna

• Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nominated 2/28 by User:Worm That Turned

Support because of the # of DYN's and the very positive comments from fellow editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

An administrator is receiving the award

Deb is an administrator and as such doesn't meet the criteria. Ryan Vesey 16:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I nominated her based on how friendly and hard-working she is. I had no idea that she was an administrator. (Not that administrators aren't friendly and hard-working). I'd better stop while I'm ahead. :~) I will withdraw her nomination ASAP. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hated the idea of bringing this up and essentially "taking" the award from her, it's just a fairness type thing. I think it's better to have a bright line than a fuzzy one. Ryan Vesey 17:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I will leave the rules to others to determine consensus on, but agree that admin generally shouldn't be nominated. Admin who genuinely participate mainly as an editor, and spend the vast majority of their time working on articles and actual content the reader will see, I think they might warrant an exception from time to time. Those of us admin that spend most of our time dealing with the maintenance (like myself), should always be excluded, as we already get more credit than we deserve, honestly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good grief; I had no idea. Perhaps we should give her a WER barnstar instead of the EotW...looking at her contribs in preparation for the EotW award banner, I assumed she was just a long time content editor. Go Phightins! 23:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Or let her be one of those rare exceptions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As her nominator I feel responsible to fix this. If exceptions were optional, we would have awarded Admin Wolf. BTW, unless Deb has visited this page she has no idea she was up for it. Luckily Automatic Strikeout has started Wikipedia:Hall of Fame. So...rather than EotW, Deb can be one of the first editors in the Hall of Fame.```Buster Seven Talk 12:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Down the line, I "may" share this mix-up with her. I'm sure she will get a chckle out of it. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Tomobe03

Any discussion or additional responses to this nomination? 07:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:FeydHuxtable

Any discussion or additional responses to this nomination? 08:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Delaywaves

Any discussion or additional responses to this nomination? 03:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Anne Delong

Any discussion or additional responses to this nomination? ```00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Seen her at the Teahouse. A shoo in. Go Phightins! 03:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly relevant - Teahouse birthday blog and Teahouse Host Lounge for birthday. Both of them have some amount of information about Anne TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

*Anne Delong, a librarian and computer programmer, started editing Wikipedia 2 months ago. She is a valued Teahouse host.

Actually Anne is an unlisted regular Teahouse guest, not a host. But a great choice still.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Some mention could be made about her interest in bluegrass music, for which she is trying to set up a WikiProject. The Interior (Talk) 21:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Dismas

Any discussion or additional responses to this nomination? 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I support this nomination. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Chiswick Chap

• Nominated by User:Worm That Turned 09:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Second this nomination. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the nomination. Please note that Sea was a collaborative effort with User:Cwmhiraeth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I often see User:Chiswick Chap at AFD where he seems to be a sensible fellow. I like his account name, which has a good tweedy sound. Warden (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor John of Reading

• Nominated 21 May @ 8:16
• Second ```Buster Seven Talk 09:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Bgwhite

Note:As pointed out, User Bgwhite is an admin and not eligible. Nominator will be contacted later this eve.

• Nominated 27 May @ 2:50
• Seconded ```Buster Seven Talk 06:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. woo woo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Bgwhite is an admin. I thought admins were not eligible. Did that change? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Good catch. No, that did not change. ``Buster Seven Talk 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Point noted, but, if needed I can ask him to step down or take a short Wikibreak from adminship for 1 week or so, will it be helpful? (experts have been appointed by Wikimedia Foundation to find out if this comment was a joke, but until someone confirms that the comment was joke, it is requested to take it seriously )
  OR it is unfortunate that Bgwhite can not be selected here since he is an admin. Can I request changes somewhere (like, admins with more than 100,000 edits are eligible to be nominated but, more than 1 admin can not be selected in 1 month, non admin—admin ratio should be 3:1 etc)? Where? --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In the earliest stages of EotW, discussions were had about awarding admins. Since the award was intended for under-appreciated editors it was determined that admins already had the prestige of their role. I think it was a fair and impartial decision. Thanks for the nomination. There must be some other "under-the-radar" editor you can nominate. Of course you can always go to the WP:ER/Editor of the Week talk page and renegotiate the issue. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Ammodramus

• nominated on 21 June by Khazar2

• Yeah, they seem deserving. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor Indian Chronicles

• nominated on 7 July by Buster7

Editor Mohamed CJ

• nominated 7/22 by User:Khazar2

Editor Mohamed CJ

• nominated 7/22 by User:Khazar2

Dr. Blofeld

• nominated 8/14 by Bonkers The Clown 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not support this nomination as I do not believe Dr. Blofeld is "an unsung hero who has been doing great work". Dr. Blofeld does do great work and deserves recognition for that work, however this scheme is designed for those who are unknown around the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not support this nomination. See User:Dr. Blofeld/Awards. It seems as though Dr. Blofeld has received every barnstar known to exist. I'm aware we did not go into specifics when we set up EotW but this nomination far exceeds our "unsung hero" intention.```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

• nominated 8/6 by Drmies 19:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Seconded Go Phightins! 19:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• I do not support this nomination as I do not believe Eric Corbett is "an unsung hero who has been doing great work". Eric does do great work and deserves recognition for that work, however this scheme is designed for those who are unknown around the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 10:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Worm and thanks for stopping by! The reason I supported this nomination is because though, as you said, Eric is well-known around the encyclopedia, but I think some of his content work is unsung - in other words, people know him for what they see at ANI or another such venue, but they don't see his content work. That's what caused me to support. Go Phightins! 12:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• To me Eric fulfills the characteristics required. While he may have renown for other things, his editing and editor assisting gets lost in the kerfuffle. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Eric is an excellent editor. But he is an editor who is well-known, even though they do meet the other criteria. The intent is to recognize someone less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown. Also, I think it is safe to say that Eric doesn't typically go unnoticed.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

MusiCitizen

• nominated by AutomaticStrikeout 15:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Seconded by ```Buster Seven Talk 16:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thirded. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

• nominated 8/14 by Bonkers The Clown 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not support this nomination as I do not believe Dr. Blofeld is "an unsung hero who has been doing great work". Dr. Blofeld does do great work and deserves recognition for that work, however this scheme is designed for those who are unknown around the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not support this nomination. See User:Dr. Blofeld/Awards. It seems as though Dr. Blofeld has received every barnstar known to exist. I'm aware we did not go into specifics when we set up EotW but this nomination far exceeds our "unsung hero" intention.```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Acalamari

• nominated by $oHƎM 16:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Administrators, while deserving, are not eligible to receive the Editor of the Week award. I have informed the Nominator```Buster Seven Talk 16:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Attention Clerks User: Go Phightins!,User:TheOriginalSoni,User:Yash!, User:Gtwfan52, User:Status, User:Hahc21, User:The Interior, User:JustBerry, User:AutomaticStrikeout: The nominator has requested dispensing with the Admin restriction (see the editors talk page). Please discuss. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Attention Clerks (Let me try notifying each of you again).... User: Go Phightins!,User:TheOriginalSoni,User:Yash!, User:Gtwfan52, User:Status, User:Hahc21, User:The Interior, User:JustBerry, User:AutomaticStrikeout: The nominator has requested dispensing with the Admin restriction (see the editors talk page). Please discuss. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, we are seeking to recognize editors who go largely unnoticed. There are some admins who do go unnoticed, but if we change the rules to make admins eligible, we risk causing this process to become very political. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the precedent we would set. Perhaps a WER barnstar? Go Phightins! 14:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I too want to nominate the person but don't want the process to be political. I know about kind the of consequences EotW will face if it awards an admin so if it has such dire consequences lets find a way out since overlooking this admin just for avoiding controversies will be unjust and prove her years worth of service for Wikipedia's welfare to be meaningless. Won't it? $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 14:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has come up and I'm sure it won't be the last. We probably should think about creating some kind of supplemental award for deserving admins. Lets wait to see what other clerks have to say. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully endorse your suggestion. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Me too!$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 15:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe it is getting to be time to have an award for underrecognized admins also. Maybe monthly instead of weekly, due to the fact that it is a pretty big recognition just to be an admin and due to the lesser numbers. I feel that simply being endorsed as an admin by the community is too much recognition to qualify for EoW. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AOTM is a red link - admin of the month. It has potential, but again, we need to gear it towards underrecognized admins ... that said, we will need more structure and rules if we go forward with this on how to decide who is "underrecognized". Go Phightins! 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

+1$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 05:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor PiCo

• Nominated:... John Carter (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Seconded:.... ```Buster Seven Talk 14:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This is the type of editor that is "forced" to do battle at articles...not by choice but by a personal commitment to neutrality and protecting the Encyclopedia. Also, he/she endeavors to make sure editors remain collaborators rather than becoming adversaries thereby reducing the Battleground atmosphere. But it can be a lonely "fight". This nomination and the Award lets them know they are not alone and that their diplomacy is appreciated. B7

Editor Mlm42

• Nominated:... ```Buster Seven Talk 16:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Seconded:....

Example:

Editor

• Nominated: ```Buster Seven Talk 19:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Seconded: Indeed! I "half-way" support this nomination. Buster3.5 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Totally :P --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 18:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

---

---

An opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Dennis Brown: Thank you very much for your note. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request

This page is getting more and more visitors which is wonderful. This is step 2 in the process. Moving to the end of the "Q" on the Accepted page after two weeks is step 3. Depending on how many editors are in the "Q", it may be 2 months before GoP dispenses the Award on a Sunday which is step 4. One of the more important but often neglected steps is
STEP #5...Everyone that seconded and offered input here now goes to the talk page of the recipient and makes a personal acknowledgement. Remember:Editor Retention happens one editor at a time

Very good idea. If we all know that the award is given out on Sunday, even if we aren't active here on Sunday, the next time we do log on here we really should offer direct thanks to the editor in that section of their talk page as well, unless they have a really fast archive and it's archived before we next log on. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What I do is about a week before, I put the editor on my watchlist. I've never run into an ultra-fast archive. Now...if someone wants to volunteer as the Official Editor of the Week Reminder Person, the position is open. The pay is not that great but the rewards are bountiful. Buster Seven Talk 19:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: I can create a template for that if you want, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Current nominations seconding and support

Rodw

• Nominated: Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Seconded: Chamith (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support:

Recently nominated editors that were ineligible

• Huon (talk · contribs · count · logs) has a long and prolific presence at the help desk, the help-en-wiki IRC channel, and at AFC. I find AFC a particularly thankless job because you're often forced to decline the submissions of new users that do not understand the notability guidelines. They've waited sometimes weeks to have their submission reviewed and when you decline the page they see you, and not the policy, as being their barrier. I believe this is why the AFC backlog is often in the thousands. The IRC channel attracts a lot persistent individuals trying to create new articles. I'm not even certain how you get in to the IRC channel from the article space; it's vaguely listed at the bottom of Wikipedia:Your first article. Huon always seems to be there in channel every time I swing by from time to time. Huon doesn't have a lot of content creation which was regrettably held against them at their RFA in 2013. Huon did end up receiving the tools and has proven to have a good understanding of the policies and guidelines the govern Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 06:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Note: User Huon is an administrator. User Mkdw was informed of the ineligibility of their nomination Buster Seven Talk 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a weird thought: @Buster7: Will an admin be considered eligible if they resigns at BN in good standing (not under the cloud) and gets nominated for WER? Jim Carter 18:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The intent of the recognition is to give thanks to lesser-known editors, so nominators are encouraged to find someone who hasn't already been given kudos for their work. Typically, admins and former admins will have been given some form of recognition already. isaacl (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not answering my question, Isaacl, I know that the recognition is to give thanks to unsung heros, you know it, Buster7 also knows it. But I bet, a random user, who never before nominated anyone will surely nominate someone who is not "lesser-known". Eric Corbett for example, who is not at all lesser known. :p Jim Carter 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • The question has already been answered in the guidelines: those who have been recognized for good work already are not candidates for Editor of the Week. It is assumed that anyone who has passed the request for admin process has been recognized for good work. Thus former admins are not candidates for Editor of the Week. As discussed previously on the Editor Retention talk page, there has been a reluctance to enforce this requirement. Nonetheless, it remains a part of the guidelines. isaacl (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
          • When and if the issue comes up we can all collaborate and get feedback, etc at that time. I see both sides and nod in agreement to both. BTW, I'm happy to say that Eric Corbett is a past recipient of the award. . Buster Seven Talk 00:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Corinne

• Nominated - {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - Indeed an amazing editor who does a lot of thankless copy-editing for such a lot of articles. Corinne truly deserves this award. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - great work at TFA. Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - I've been impressed with Corinne's GOCE work on articles that have been nominated for DYK with problematic prose, such that they could not pass without a good copyedit, which she provided, along with to-the-point queries on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment -

Nomination of Nvvchar

• Nominated - Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - I second the nomination of Nvvchar, a true gentleman. He has written hundreds of articles on a variety of topics, and I've learned a lot from him. He is highly deserving of this award. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded – Nvvchar (according to his user page, his true name is 42 letters long!) is a gentleman, a scholar, and his mother trained him well. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't believe now is the best time, given the current issues here and at the related Template:Did you know nominations/Nachiarkoil Lamp. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reply - Nvvchar's nomination will be considered Accepted in one week (now that it has been seconded). If all goes as expected, it will be at least two months before the actual award is presented, Buster Seven Talk 20:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded - Tito Dutta 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ghmyrtle

• Nominated - Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - I second this nomination. Mr Myrtle's contributions, particularly to music articles, are very impressive -- but what really deserves praise is his evenhandedness, levelheadedness, and as Martin observes, his patience. He would make a great admin, or better yet, replacement for Jimbo. -- Grassy Knoll Gallagher (talk)
• Comment - Yes, I sometimes wish we could vote people into positions they did not really expect. I guess Guy is just too keen on editing to want to bother with the mop. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter I. Vardy

• Nominated - Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - JezGrove (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - By all means, yes. His amazing work with British churches among other things deserves as much praise as he can get. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment -

Nomination of Ipigott

• Nominated - SusunW (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - I second the nomination. Ipigott is reliable, authentic, bright, and articulate. If he says he's going to do something, he does it. A polyglot, his translation assistance is invaluable. Renaissance man is an apt description. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - and thirded and so on, per Rosiestep. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - Oh, yes indeed. A very good contributor. Very familiar with this editor's contributions. A good choice. — Maile (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - I usually do a little vetting to authenticate the nominations and maybe add a thing or two gleaned from talk page comments, etc. Too much to choose from here. A Quality editor we are proud to acknowledge. A champion of the Women in Red project. Buster Seven Talk 13:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - Like others above, I acknowledge and am grateful for his extraordinary efforts in building our comparatively low number of biographies of women, which is one of our larger and more obvious set of articles. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment -

Nomination of Teblick

• Nominated - We hope (talk) 00
• Seconded -
• Comment -

Nomination of Dawnseeker2000

• Nominated - Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded -
• Comment -

Nomination of _________________

• Nominated -
• Seconded -
• Comment -

Nomination of __________________

• Nominated -
• Seconded -
• Comment -

Nomination of 78.26 (An Administrator)

• Nominated - We hope (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

We hope Please note: The editor is an administrator, and so by the criteria, ineligible. Buster Seven Talk 02:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -

Nomination of FunkMonk

• Nominated - Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded - - NQ (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment -

Nomination of Oshwah

• Nominated - Peter Sam Fan 16:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded -
• Comment - This editor just went over the 100K barrier. A wonderful proficient editor but one that stretches the guidelines of who this award was intended to acknowledge. Pinging another clerk for input. Isaacl, please also comment on the next nomination. Buster Seven Talk 10:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The editor has received numerous barnstars, so I agree it doesn't quite fit the award's guidelines. That being said, I recognize that in the past the "lesser known" criterion hasn't always been followed, so I'm not sure of the best way moving forward. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we maintain our standards and start to give out a "consolation barnstar" to handle nomination situations like this and the one below. Or, better yet , that we suggest this barnstar to the nominaTOR for them to use.:

Teamwork barnstar

		Teamwork barnstar
		I am honored to present you with this Teamwork barnstar for your constant assisting of other editors. Collaborative editing is a hallmark of Wikipedia, and is one of the surest ways to retain editors and to make Wikipedia a better place... and you have done both. Thank you, Buster Seven Talk 12:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk 12:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ohconfucius

• Nominated - John Carter (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded -
• Comment -This shows an editor with over 280K edits. Not exactley "unknown".
  • This editor is pretty well known in some circles and has numerous barnstars, so I suggest seeking another way to recognize the editor's efforts. A personal note describing specific helpful tasks does wonders! isaacl (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

see the Barnstar above,. Buster Seven Talk 12:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Transition

L235 The first thing is check the "Nom" for "User10" and install. Editors nominate at the "Nom" page and then we wait here for a Second for at least two weeks. This allows time for comments and, as often happens, more than one second. Check the history to see the set up which I would do soon after the nomination lest I forget. You are probably familiar with some of this so I apologize if I sound "teach-y". Buster Seven Talk 11:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor Mjrmtg

• Nominated:Thomson200 18:53, 26 June 2016

• Seconded: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thirded: - Buster Seven Talk 19:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Oshwah

• Nominated: Peter 16:23, 27 April 2016
• Seconded: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thirded: --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Fourthed: -- Buster Seven Talk 19:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Fifthed: Yash! 09:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Hmlarson

• Nominated: Yash! 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded: - Buster Seven Talk 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Irondome

• Nominated: - Nishidani 21:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded: - Yash! 09:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Excellent candidate. Go Phightins! 17:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Strike Eagle

• Nominated: - KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded: - Well deserved! Yash! 08:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Another strong support. I am giddy to see this award continuing forward. Thanks for your continued work, everyone! Go Phightins! 17:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Oshwah

• Nominated: Peter 16:23, 27 April 2016
• Seconded: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thirded: --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Fourthed: -- Buster Seven Talk 19:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Fifthed: Yash! 09:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Irondome

• Nominated: - Nishidani 21:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded: - Yash! 09:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Excellent candidate. Go Phightins! 17:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Strike Eagle

• Nominated: - KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded: - Well deserved! Yash! 08:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Another strong support. I am giddy to see this award continuing forward. Thanks for your continued work, everyone! Go Phightins! 17:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Hmlarson

• Nominated: Yash! 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded: - Buster Seven Talk 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah

• Nominated: User:We Hope 12:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded: I second the nomination. Yoninah has an impressive track record of strong content creation. Lepricavark (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comments:When a nomination is too brief I would add info from [1] such as; 47% of 56K edits to articles, 27% to threads, 96% summary used. Active since late 2005. I also might browse the editors talk page for positive comments and nice things to that were said about them. Buster Seven Talk 07:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support: I have worked together with this editor on various articles over the last few years and have found them to be very collaborative. This is not only a a good writer, but a friendly editor. My hearty endorsement as a great choice for Editor of the Week. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Skipping the regular procedural rules, I will be awarding Yoninah tomorrow. This will possibly be my last EotW award as facilitator; @Lepricavark: I've not had much time, but I hope to email you about some stuff within the next week. If a week passes and I haven't emailed you, please poke me. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Awarded: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Cambalachero

• Nominated:MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 00:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Seconded: Lepricavark (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Awarded: Lepricavark (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No second?

I note that k.e. coffman has not received a second. Does that mean his nom may not go through? It's richly deserved. Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

As of some time ago, I believe seconds are no longer required Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@L235: Thanks, appreciate the clarification. Say, I see you just eked out a narrow consensus for RfA ;) Congratulations! Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Add "Do not create a section header with the nominations name in it"

Because it shows up in the edit summary for this page and is viewable if people check your contributions.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why Mark Miller's comment was not discussed or acted on? I came to this talk page today to communicate the same observation. I am somewhat taken aback that coordinators of this process wouldn't see this as a thing worthy of discussion let alone mitigation? Why shouldn't this situation be corrected? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I sadly confess to not having seen Mark's suggestion till just now. I've always been aware that the nominees name would show up in various places (watchlist, recent changes, etc) and possibly be inadvertently seen by the Nominee and spoil the surprise. Over the years care was taken (by me) to use a created nickname or erase the thread name entirely from the edit summary. I admit I have not recently been as careful as before. I will do my best to correct the situation.―Buster7 ☎ 02:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I have also just read his concern. Although I have seen the talk page once or twice before I have not read his concern until now! I apologize for this slip. Also, I did not think about the edit summaries part which was noticed by John Cline that attracted him to the nomination's page. I have nominated a few people with the headings in the edit summaries. This is a wonderful concern raised by Mark Miller, and a wonderful approach by Buster7. I would remove the nominee's name as well and customize all the edit summaries for the future nominations. Also, should I avoid the section heading altogether while nominating? Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest using the nominee's "user ID" in the section header. Most people do not know their own user ID so as to make it easily recognizable in watchlist summaries and it is easy enough to ascertain. I am working on a solution for making it easily convertible back to the username, for those needing or wanting to know. Thank you both for showing that you do appreciate reason.--John Cline (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think it has to be that fancy; the contents of the heading doesn't really matter. In any case, in the meantime I have changed the instructions slightly as well as the preloaded text. I've left a message on User:Go Phightins! talk page to ask if he can change the edit notice (an administrator has to do it; I can always create an edit request but since Go Phightins! was a long-time contributor to Editor of the Week, he is a natural choice to ask for help). isaacl (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing has to be anything(particular) unless it makes sense. On the one hand, I was glad for being able to interpret the edit summary which did bring me to the nomination so I could append my support. And the other hand knows there's a spoiler there, worth protecting. The magic comes in managing the different things that make sense. In any regard, I can help out with changes to the edit notice if such a need arises. I think the endeavors of this process are worthwhile initiatives, and I will be glad whenever I am able to support them. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For simplicity for nominators, I suggest replacing the existing nomination headings with the date of the nomination; it will set a sample pattern for others to follow. If anyone has any other suggestions, please let me know! isaacl (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Isaacl and John. Yesterday, I changed the headings at Accepted to just numerical but a date works better.―Buster7 ☎ 15:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of the nomination page, but you're right, on the accepted page the tentative date for the recognition might be helpful. It might be a bit tiresome, though, if all the dates had to be shifted should a week get missed. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just so we are all on the same page:

• Most nominations are submitted at the Nomination page where instructions now include the "edit summary" warning
• After a week or two to provide time for seconds and thirds, etc. (longer if the Accepted queue is lengthy), I move them to the Accepted Nomination page and will now start to use a section header that displays the historic record of how many EotW's have been awarded rather than the editor by name.
• Seconds are no longer required but are more than welcome to add "spice" to the nomination. There are currently 2 editors in the Nomination queue and 9 in the Accepted Nomination queue...a very healthy backlog. ―Buster7 ☎ 19:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Your ideas seem really wonderful! User counts or dates, both seem fine to me. Also, what should we use for the section headers of current nominations? Should we something like "##" to make it more elusive? Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I used created nicknames, K and shy, for the current ones and with the new instructions nominators should be aware of the concern for secrecy. "K" is a member of WER so it may be a lost cause to keep his secret. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, my suggestion is to use the nomination date; for multiple nominations on the same day, add a distinguishing number. But in all honesty it doesn't matter exactly what it is. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the date is a good choice. It appropriately conceals the spoiler, and it does provide useful information in the summary; by it, an editor can determine if the nomination was in place before their last visit or if it's one they hadn't seen (being newer). It's a good example of managing the different things that each make sense by serving them all (as best you can) and dis-serving none. Assuming the header does not matter dis-serves the contingent of editors hoping to glean useful information from it. Therefore, the date best serves the overall needs. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Very cool to see this get discussed!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hiding section names from edit summaries

@Buster7: When you edit a section, you can hide the section name from the edit summary by deleting the /* Section name */ part of the edit summary. This would make edits like Special:Diff/902977954 less conspicuous. Hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 10:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: Funny! Months later and I finally understand your message. Thanks for the heads up.―Buster7 ☎ 14:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem! — Newslinger talk 14:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Belgian Canadians

Gotta Love those Canadians!!!!―Buster7 ☎ 22:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Buster7: I happen to be Canadian as well, so I'd like to thank you for saying that. Clovermoss (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Clovermoss:. Growing up I had distant family members in Canada near Windsor and some near Winnipeg. We are Flemish Belgian transplants after WWII. Our occasional visits to them are still fond memories. Whenever possible (on road trips to the Pacific NorthWest) we head into Canada on the way home. Always a pleasure spending time sharing notes with friendly Canadians. About your nominations: at the moment we have plenty. the ten will take us into mid-April. Don't stop finding them but hold them aside till the Queue gets down to 2 or 3. Thanks again for joining> ―Buster7 ☎ 18:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination #(tbd)

This discussion was moved to the talk page once an "acceptable" nomination was presented. The first nomination consisted of a single sentance and was by an IP. ―Buster7 ☎ 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume you don't take nominations from unregistered accounts? Things can't have got that bad. ——Serial ^# 12:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No it hasn't but I'm always reluctant to turn my back to a nomination especially to an editor so worthy of the Award. I'm doing the usual vetting of BHG and will search out a nominator that will do her and her WP history justice. Her talk page and archives (that I am in the act of perusing) show a vastly deserving editor. ―Buster7 ☎ 13:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to be wary of nominations where the editor has been recently sanctioned (or in this case desysopped) by ArbCom for conduct that tends to work against editor retention. Not sure what a timeline should be for moving past that, but the recent ArbCom case came to mind when I saw the nom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall your last nomination. I looked at her desysopping case and came away unconcerned about any blow back for awarding a 14 year veteran of the Wikipedia trenches. None of us are saints. ―Buster7 ☎ 17:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Too true: no glory and precious few heroes. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I respect KingofAces' position, but I think I'm right in saying that EotW is in recognition of contributions, not dependent on "political" or other behavioural factors. If I'm correct, Buster7 can put me down as nominator, as my opinion on that Arb case is well known—and, indeed, shared by many. ——Serial ^# 18:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SN. I believe a nomination is in the works. When it arrives I will surely include you as a second and any one else that wants to boost the spirits of a deserving editor. ―Buster7 ☎ 22:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Buster7, I'd be happy to second (or third, however it turns out) :) -- puddleglum^2.0 22:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Very true, I support this nomination and don't agree they should not deserve this purely on the basis of a desysop, They've contributed a lot to this project as admin and as editor and both should be appreciated, Would be quite different if they were a sock or vandal that's not the case here. –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just mark it as nominated by acclamation. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, this issue is not so much the desysop, but the conduct that lead to it that concerned me. Personal attacks, especially persistent enough to be a major finding of an ArbCom case, are an issue for this project's goal with it being WikiProject Editor Retention. When the rest of the community that had to deal with someone being disruptive sees that person awarded EotW, that can be a slap in the face for editors who may be close to leaving or otherwise on the receiving end of the behavior. That's been my concern for awhile now when I vet noms (usually not needing to chime in).

I'm always wary about being tone-deaf or a "no big deal" attitude about those optics, and what a nominee has done otherwise doesn't really alleviate that. That was a full blown ArbCom case, not a little edit warring spat block that would quickly fade away. Just under four months out from ArbCom is a little too recent still considering the seriousness of it. I'm not too familiar with the nominee otherwise, but I'd see no problem if it were closer 9-12 months out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Her conduct has been adjudicated. The defendant has been punished. Her time in the stockade is over. She has returned to her normal parenting/editing of categories. As an editor pointed out in the first paragraph of her Case:"I can entirely see why she feels she's now not welcome...." The Editor of the Week award is intended to boost the spirits of the editor that receives it...a thank you for their efforts. I think, in three weeks when its handed out, it will fulfill that purpose. I don't concern myself with how a tiny minority of the community might feel. It's doubtful that a single editor has ever left because somebody got an award. Another solution that would work is providing 15 other nominations which can precede this nomination to fulfill your 9 month quarantine. I see no problem in moving her down the queue until her parole is over. ―Buster7 ☎ 04:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown, who began the Editor Retention Project years ago, pointed out that retaining editors happens one at a time. This nomination is meant to retain one editor: BHG! ―Buster7 ☎ 05:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks IP 539E for getting the ball rolling here. Buster - King's objection looks very valid, and definetly worth considering before proceeding. On the other hand, as I understand it EotW is about appreciation, it doesnt at all imply endorsement for all an editor's actions. If it's your considered opinion that there's no need to pause this nomination, then I support. I know BHG fairly well, among other things due to our shared interest in UK & celtic politics, and she's a most outstanding editor. Here's my nomination, no need to ask me if you wanted to edit or trim it first:

BrownHairedGirl is one of the editors most responsible for making Wikipedia one of the world's best sources of information. Joining the project back in Jan 2006, she's made over 1.5 million edits and has created over 3,000 articles. During her tenure our reputation for reliability has increased significantly, and BHG's work is undeniably a major reason. She's a good writer with a great eye for selecting items of human interest and encyclopaedic salience, making her one of our strongest contributors for content relating to Irish & British politics. Yet most of her time is spent doing what many would perceive as boring house keeping - removing incorrect information, enhancing other editors work with minor format improvements, and perhaps most of all by contributing to the organisation of information with a phenomenal amount of edits to our cat & disamb. pages. Her commitment to integrity does sometimes spark some very formidable argumentation, some might find it occasionally over passionate. Yet none can deny her commitment to the project, or the fact that her talk page contributions significantly elevate the analytical rigour of our discussions. Overall, BHG is one of our more peaceful editors, with an unusually high % of edits having nothing to do with drama. When she does collaborate with others she's typically helpful and kind. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well done, FeydHuxtable, you just pinged her. Nice work. ——Serial ^# 10:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, & sorry if I shouldn't say this. I just find it so amusing I missed the clear "no ping" instruction at the top of the page, just a few hours after saying "I don't even ***ing blink". FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Fred. I've run into BHG a few times over the years and always felt she was a fine editor but I really did not know her well so your discussion of her time here is very helpful. As for what Kof calls his main concern: "when the rest of the community that had to deal with someone being disruptive sees that person awarded EotW, that can be a slap in the face for editors who may be close to leaving or otherwise on the receiving end of the behavior." I find this highly doubtful and if the truth be known I believe that Kof, who I have had to deal with frequently over the years, is much more likely to have turned more editors away than anything that BHG ever did. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, let's not make this personal; just as nominees aren't expected to be perfect, neither are nominators. I suggest any further discussion be held on the talk page; I set it up that way from the start to keep some separation between the good intentions of the nominators, and discussion of the outcome by the interested parties. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You are correct and thank you Isaacl. This is no place for me to discuss my personal feelings about Kof who has every right to express his opinions, though I may question them. Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern regarding the recently nominated editor. For better or worse, Editor of the Week was set up as a "no big deal" recognition, to provide gratitude for specific actions. It was done this way to avoid it becoming a hat to collect with a lot of politicking and arguing involved. It's basically a slightly fancy barnstar. Originally it was targeted at lesser-known editors, but since that was never really enforced, that requirement was dropped. I still think it works best for lesser-known editors, but I know some people like novel ways to give thanks even to well-known editors. Most editors will have some group of people who would disagree vehemently with recognizing them. We didn't want to just make Editor of the Week a popularity award and so deliberately don't require an editor to be ideal in every way. The main criterion is the editor must have done something substantial that the nominator appreciates. isaacl (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, although in the knowledge that it's pointless bling and not an RfA... ——Serial ^# 10:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, speaking more broadly on "no big deal" that definitely should be the case for editors without any major going on. We need to be careful about taking that so far to insinuate that disruptive behavior is no big deal, which is what the award can look like to the community if we aren't mindful of what's going on elsewhere. In more extreme examples, like yesterday, a nom came in almost right after an ANI was closed about their battleground behavior, and the nom was quickly moved to accepted. Seeing a few too many instances of that led me to start vetting noms more often here. If someone wants to give some encouragement to an editor who needs to work on behavior, a personal barnstar is probably a better choice at that time rather than EoTW when a person has been exhibiting behavior counter to this project's goals.

For the nom at hand, I won't rehash what I said above, but it is a balance between recency and seriousness that we also can't easily craft hard guidelines on. There's nothing wrong with both saying it looks like the editor is getting back on track, but it's probably better to re-nom when whatever behavior they were involved in has had some decent breathing room. That's my general stance on this one. Encouraging the nom is one thing, but behavior issues complicate the award where discouraging those subject to the behavior (e.g., disillusionment) is also unfortunately a factor to consider. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the beginning in 2013, over 350 Awards ago, I have rarely researched in depth what the nominated editor did wrong. My focus was on what the nominator found as a positive and assumed good faith. As to the Levivich situation: is anything Puddlegum says about him/her not true? I repeat that I do not worry myself one iota over the disillusionment of other editors. BTW: What a coincidence! The song "Take This Job and Shove It" is playing in the background. ―Buster7 ☎ 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the difficulty in crafting guidelines is the problem. No one wanted to get into a protracted argument on the pros and cons of the totality of an editor's actions. The name of the recognition probably hasn't been the best fit; something like a "Good job!" recognition is what has emerged. I continue to strongly suggest that nominations should highlight specific laudable actions. If this recognition were more high-profile, then I might be more concerned. As it is: mainly Buster7 makes it run, and I think it has less visibility than the "Precious" recognition currently run by Gerda Arendt. The initiative is imperfect, much like its recipients and nominators. At this point I think it may be simpler for any interested parties to create their own recognition with their desired process, avoiding the baggage with Editor of the Week. (Renaming might be more feasible, my out-of-the-blue guess is that it might be hard to get consensus, but I could be wrong.) isaacl (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I did at one point suggest replacing Editor of the Week with a WikiSalute program. Today, I'd suggest starting any new initiative as a parallel one. isaacl (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Awarded

BrownHhairedGirl was awarded her Eddy on July 25, 2020. As far as I know not a single editor has "left the building" because of it. ―Buster7 ☎ 03:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. From the beginning the response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is down to three, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background, out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today! ―Buster7 ☎ 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank You...

...for all the new nominations and for those still to come. I will incorporate some of the newer ones ASAP. It is a relief to have a backlog. It's like finding some hidden cans of pork and beans and mushroom soup in the larder during this "HiberNation" ―Buster7 ☎ 16:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A year later and the backlog continues. There are now almost a dozen nominations in the Queue. Thanks to all that are participants in the nomination process and also those that have shared your insights into the recent discussions. ―Buster7 ☎ 13:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination 2

I nominate JackReynoldsADogOwner (talk · contribs · count · logs) to be Editor of the Week for being a great adopter. If you look at his and mine talk page, you can see that he has helped other editors a lot. He is my mentor and is a great one.

StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buster7 StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment

Editor of the Week

@StarshipSLS: Thank you so much for this! You have been doing a great job learning! Thank you, again! Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 12:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: You welcome. So you accept the nomination? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 12:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS: Yes I do. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 12:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: So now what happens? When will you become Editor of the Week? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 12:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS: I don't know. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 12:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• @StarshipSLS: It is incredible that Please do not link to the nominee's user or talk page is at the top of this page—and the edit window—in massive coloured text. And yet you still linked to to them. And the fact that you have to ask your nominee what happens now—when the procedure is clearly noted above—is wholly bizarre. ——Serial 12:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec)There are ten editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations. ―Buster7 ☎ 12:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I did not link to it. Buster 7 did. Also, the description above does not tell the whole process. Note: The nominee is my mentor. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 12:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS Note: Your mentor should also advise you strongly to increase the red on this drastically; someone not assuming the good faith that I am might suggest that you're here for social reasons rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. ——Serial 12:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec)There are ten editors or more in the Queue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations. This nomination will go to the end of the line and be distributed at the appropriate time. Congrats go to Jack. Thanks for educating the next generation of editors, impulsive tho they may be!!!―Buster7 ☎ 12:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how Jack was notified but that's OK. But in the coming weeks it would be appreciated if StarShipSLS would fill in the nomination with a little more info. How long has Jack been editing? What topics does he like to work in? Does he have any featured articles? What are his interests? How many edits in mainspace. Does he belong to any Projects? Who is Jack. ( I'm sure he is a GREAT editor but it would be nice to know why he is great!!. ―Buster7 ☎ 12:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I am focusing on drafts. And there is so much talk page edits because of help from my mentors. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 12:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buster7: 2483 edits, belongs to WikiProjects Rocketry, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Dua Lipa, Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga, COVID-19, and task force Harry Potter. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buster7: 2483 edits, belongs to WikiProject Rocketry StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: My mentor also mostly edits talk pages. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor Starship. With all due respect for your newness I would appreciate it if you would add these items/qualities to the nomination yourself. One of Wikipedias Prime Understandings is that we are all volunteers. I usually vet the nominations before moving them to Accepted and add interesting discoveries I uncover. But, I like to have more than a skeleton to work with. I'm sure your next nomination will be more expressive. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buster7: 2483 edits, belongs to WikiProjects Rocketry, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Dua Lipa, Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga, COVID-19, and task force Harry Potter. He is my mentor and has helped me for about a month. He mostly edits articles about performers such as Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, and Dua Lipa. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If you could list some specific actions that you want to recognize, that would be great! Please feel free to update your nomination text on the nomination page. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, your mentor (this one here anyway) edits mainspace nicely; you should do likewise. Be mindful. ——Serial 13:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fairness, our new friend here would have a better mainspace % if not for the draftifications. Vaticidalprophet 13:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, please don't notify the nominee. Part of the enjoyment of the recognition is the surprise! Plus, if for some reason the nomination doesn't go through, you won't have raised someone's expectations unnecessarily. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• StarshipSLS You do realise you only had to click on "Editor of the week" at the top of the page and then proceed to read the "Process" section which explains what happens .... It's rather disrespectful to come to a page and say "I don't know what happens" when it's written in black and white. You wouldn't nominate someone for a real award without knowing the process would you ? I would certainly hope not.

That aside I'm also on the fence with supporting given the nominator only edits talkpages and Jack themselves edits talkpages after mainspace but maybe that alone isn't a reason to Oppose. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

True Davey. I kind of wonder whether five months' tenure is really sufficient to mentor the less experienced. No disrespect to Jack, a fellow dog lover. ——Serial 13:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Jack is a very good mentor and helps me a lot. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't dream of mentoring anyone, and I'm perhaps, to flatter myself, on the more clueful end of five months tenure. I do have the sense from a conversation with the two parties about RfA nominations that Jack, while surely developing into a strong editor, might not necessarily grasp the nuance involved in some issues. Vaticidalprophet 13:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Jack is a very great editor and know a lot about Wikipedia policies. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would say it wasn't. I would expect someone to be mentored by someone who's been here much much longer than 5 months, Unfortunately I have a dog phobia (literally scared of the tiniest of dogs!) so unfortunately I cannot support because of dogs lol, Not a cat lover either lol. –Davey2010^Talk 13:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if my pic was a trigger, Davey! :o ——Serial 13:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh no no I'm fine with dog pictures It's just having them near IRL is what terrifies me lol. No need to apologies all's good in the hood :). –Davey2010^Talk 14:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Vaticidalprophet, Serial Number 54129, and Davey2010: I totally understand where you guys are coming from. Yes, there are issues that I still don't fully understand to how (and when) to deal with and I am some-what "new". But, I am open to feedback and I am also willing to change the way I do stuff, if it is need to be changed. I will do my best to educate others. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 13:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, you seem to be on the right track, and to be able to acknowledge your errors. (I might call your statements wrt CW a serious error, but you're also not aware of the full extent of his abusive behaviour.) I noted the conversation about RfA because it stood out to me as an example of knowing rules but not nuance. You gave SLS information on how to technically nominate someone for adminship, which is perhaps useful to store away for the future, but without acknowledging that 1. SLS should not be nominating people for adminship for a long, long time and 2. the person he had wanted to nominate didn't want him to nominate him. If someone hadn't stepped in, that could have gone poorly. Vaticidalprophet 14:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: I will keep those in mind. I did re-read the reason why CW was blocked, and I do now that his behavior were abusive. Thank you for letting me know! I am also glad that someone did step in. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the interaction here is great. Could it be moved to the editor's talk page, though, to avoid filling up the nomination page? Thanks! Also note discussion of the nomination itself is generally held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations, to maintain some separation between all the nominations and discussion of them.

Regarding the type of recipient being sought, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week § Nature of recognition for more discussion. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments copied from nomination page:

@Buster7: Why isn't this accepted? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Go to [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/JackReynoldsADogOwner) and provide some meat for these uncooked and unseasoned potatoes. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Buster7: Looks good to me. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions@) 01:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You may recall you were given guidance on the nomination process at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations § Nomination 2. Also, as previously mentioned, please discuss nominations on the talk page, and not the nomination page. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Isaacl. I forgot this previous dfscussion. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries; just prompting the nominator to follow up. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Buster7: Looks good to me. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions@) 01:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well it doesn't look good to me, Starship, and I am the final arbiter. Of the 400 Awards I would say I have enhanced a third of them with additional facts and figures...but I was provided with more than a bare skeleton. The other 2/3 arrived as finished products that needed only a little trim here and there. If you can't find more to say about your nomination, then maybe some other editor may take up the simple task. But as it stands now it does not meet the standards set by the other 400. Sorry! ―Buster7 ☎ 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buster7: If you look at Jack Reynolds' talk page, you can see that even though he has only been on Wikipedia for about 6 months, he has helped many users. He has made 2978 edits and has created 239 pages. Almost 50% of his edits are in mainspace. He has also answered many of my questions about Wikipedia (because he is my mentor) via talk page and email. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buster7: Also, if you want you can ask @FredModulars about him as well. He was adopted by him for a while. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buster7: And, just so you know, I plan to take a two month vacation starting on Thursday. I won't be available then. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can award a barnstar to your mentor. The simpler process may be more what you're looking for. isaacl (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl:, I'm pretty sure they've done this multiple times in the past as have I.

In response to @StarshipSLS: As much as I enjoyed Jack as my adopter, I feel this is a tad bit extreme. I acknowledged Jack wasn't very experienced (time aspect), but I felt he did guide me well. Considering my previous adopter, whom I'd like not to directly name, he was a breath of fresh air to a process I was already doubting. That being said, the nomination is premature and I would love to see Jack here again at a later date. I myself can't give a lot of feedback on the nominee on the technical aspects of the nomination (I'm still somewhat of a novice myself), but Jack is a great and, from my perception, hard-working person who deserves this. I just feel right now is too early.

Speaking on the nominator (from mediocre observance), Starship seems, in my eyes, devoted. From the glances I have gotten on Jack's talk page, they are excited and enthusiastic about editing. They even reached out on my talk page to inquire about working together, though I am not sure why they failed to respond. Those here might want to ask User:Doggy54321 about Jack. I am pretty sure Jack was under their wing in the past and they seem, like Jack, hardworking and passionate. Doggy, Jack, and I worked (myself briefly) together on a project to remove faulty sources. Not sure how it turned out, but you might also want to investigate Jack's works there. Finally, the last reference I can provide is User:48Pills who also worked on the project. I am pretty sure they did not work a lot with Jack, but they might be able to comment on what they observed. It might be a long shot. Everyone I just mentioned is probably a better person to ask than me, honestly. FredModulars (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@FredModulars: Thanks for the reply. Maybe it is a good idea to wait a while to do this. I have responded on your talk page and I do not know how is it that I didn't see your response. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Fred and the observation that it might be a tad early for Jack. For now I will remove Jack from consideration with the assurance that he will be "in the running" early next year. Starship. We at Editor Retention wish you luck and good editing. Construct a solid comprehensive nomination between now and then and it will receive the utmost attention. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is a bit early, and I think removing Jack from consideration and keeping him in the running for next year is a good idea. Thanks for the ping! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week was created under the editor retention project to encourage editors to continue editing by recognizing their good work (originally, the criteria explicitly said it was for lesser-known editors). It's in essence a slightly fancy barnstar. Examples of the type of work that is recognized is described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week § Editor of the Week, and of course in the many previous nominations. All that's really being asked for is some specific tasks or actions for which the nominator is thanking the recipient. I appreciate that this process might not suit everyone, and that's perfectly fine. Personal notes are always highly appreciated, and I encourage them! isaacl (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buster7@FredModulars@Isaacl: I agree with the decision and would be happy to re-nominate Jack early next year if I remember. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a new nomination or even talking about it but...

I posted about this over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week at New EotW topicon. I created a new top icon earlier this week - Template:Editor of the Week topicon - and was wondering if it could be part of the EotW notice that awardees get on their user talk. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Shearonink: I don't know how I missed this all these months but I think it is a great idea. I have just added it to my page and it looks great. Do I just insert it into the template? And if so, where? Thanks for your help! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Buster7 - Oh that is fine, no worries, no apologies necessary. I think so? I am *so* Un-Tech about these things, lol not the right person to ask. All I can think of is to maybe you could insert it and send me or yourself a "test-notice" to make sure it looks all purty I guess... Thanks for noticing at all! Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I debate whether or not to go back and give each of the past EDDY awardees the new topicon. I am also Un-Tech so I think "Not" so as not to run into problems....but....going forward....I will add it to future User pages. Who doesn't like a trinket or two? ―Buster7 ☎ 17:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

In a similar manner as the userbox, I suggest updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient notification with instructions for placing a top icon on the recipient's user page, and leaving it up to them to decide if they want to include it. isaacl (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Would something like the following suffice?

"You can also insert the following topicon to your user page to display your selection as Editor of the Week"

{{{{Template:Editor of the Week topicon}}}}

―Buster7 ☎ 14:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A Self-nomination

I nominate Q28 for his persistent efforts in tidying up articles. Often editors will hurriedly introduce new information to an article, without placing a full citation, or with spelling and grammatical errors. Over the past four months, Q28 has been fixing the edits of others, doing the tedious work of completing the citation information, copy editing the prose to resolve errors and to align it with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and fixing links to other articles. In addition, Q28 has a great positive attitude in discussions with other editors: he always finds the most promising aspects of the comments of others, and follows up on them in trying to build a genuine consensus. Without willing editors to perform cleanup tasks, Wikipedia could not sustain its level of participation from one-time editors who just want to get in and out with their edits as soon as possible. Q28 is a great example of a Wikipedia editor who improves the community through his excellent work! --Q𝟤𝟪 06:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to self-nominate... –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this column allows self-mention.@Novem Linguae Q𝟤𝟪 15:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like you've self-nominated yourself here before. Diff. I do not think it is a good idea to keep nominating yourself for this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately oppose because it is a self-nomination. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose too. Since q28 knows they have been nominated, that also goes against the spirit of EotW since it's supposed to be a surprise. KoA (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The value of the Editor of the Week recognition is that you've been recognized by other editors for your good work. If you want to write your own summary of accomplishments, you can just put it on your user page yourself (something that is commonly done). isaacl (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)