Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Archive 3

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

A mistake on my part

I must have inadvertently clicked on the second section header on the queue of accepted nominations, not noticing the first, as I just presented this week's EotW to Muboshgu, rather than Pyrotec, who was first in the queue. Not wanting to take it away from Muboshgu only to give it back to him next week, and seeing as Pyrotec has not edited in >a week anyway, it is my recommendation that we award the latter next week, and keep Muboshgu as this week's EotW. I will ping John from Idegon, Buster7, The Interior, and for posterity, though both are inactive, the nominators of both recipients, Khazar2 and AutomaticStrikeout. I apologize for my mistake. Go Phightins! 16:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys

Recognition isn't why I edit, but it's appreciated nonetheless. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Muboshgu - editors like you deserve recognition for their hard work and dedication to crafting an outstanding encyclopedia. Thanks! Go Phightins! 22:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Award by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention of 'Editor of the Week' to User:Gaijin42

I have started a thread on this award at WP:ANI: see [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Zeorymer

When writing his kudos, check his global contribs: 35447 edits found in 7 projects. His work on the English Wikipedia is impressive and deserves recognition but his work on Wikipedia from a wider viewpoint in even more so. He's a frequent contributer to commons with over 20k edits there plus constructive edits to ptwiki and frwiki. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 17:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

How to recognize admins

No doubt your ongoing initiative to support and further reward cuddly blocking admins will have many supporters and admirers, but the terms for this particular award state that: "As admins typically have already been recognized for their work, please limit your nominations to non-admins". Perhaps you could create a special award honouring cuddly blocking admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, Anythingyouwant, and Epipelagic. Epipelagic is correct, that we do not recognize administrators with EotW consideration, however we have had deserving administrators nominated in the past. For now, we have no alternate award, though perhaps an "under-recognized admin of the month" award would be a good idea. Nevertheless, perhaps either you or we, at EotW, could award Kelapstick with a WER barnstar for his efforts? Go Phightins! 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, an EotW-endorsed barnstar would be highly appropriate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(Discussion moved here from nominations page)

What should we do to recognize administrators who do not receive significant recognition? Go Phightins! 19:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Go P. (I'm always a little embarrassed when I type that). What you did at User talk:Kelapstick was great. Low maintenance. No record keeping. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we could even update that barnstar a bit, maybe make it a little more visually pleasing.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Two new nominations

User:Go Phightins!, User:TheOriginalSoni, User:John from Idegon, User:Mark Miller, User:Status, User:Hahc21, User:The Interior, User:JustBerry, User talk:Lettik

I have nominated two editors for your consideration and discussion. Early on we decided to maintain at least 6 editors in the Q. This, of course, requires that the nomination process/page be constantly refreshed. While every effort is made to keep the nomination process trouble-free, a "second" to each nomination is a necessary preliminary to assure support and to move the nomination into the Q. Please participate in the seconding process and keep the Eddy Award in mind as you wander around Wikipedia. There are thousands of worthy editors just waiting for a "pat on the back". Don't Wait---Nominate. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just informing you that Echo pings only work if you link to a User page AND sign the edit. Which is why the previous ping didnt work
Re-ping User:Go Phightins! User:John from Idegon User:Mark Miller User:Status User:Hahc21 User:The Interior User:JustBerry User talk:Lettik.
P.S. I'll just let someone else look into the seconding as I am not really that involved with the Eddy these days.
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Third ping. User:Go Phightins!, User:John from Idegon, User:Mark Miller, User:Status, User:Hahc21, User:The Interior, User:JustBerry, User talk:Lettik. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm a little wraped up with some research at the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Buster. I will try to look this afternoon. Go Phightins! 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm busy. I don't think I could help this time :( — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Advertising!

Good news!

The @Coal town guy: winner of one of the first Eddy's being recognized on a much wider stage. I became aware of this on Facebook of all places. Check it out!. John from Idegon (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

T-shirt for EotW recepients

Lixxx235 Beginning this month the Editor of the week will be nominated for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks to EditorLixxx235 who will be facilitating this merchandising effort. . Buster Seven Talk 07:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

EOTW nomination editnotices

@Buster7 and Go Phightins!: I've done the following fiddling with the WP:EOTW/N editnotice:

in order to start a discussion on changing the editnotice from it's current form to one that still warns not to link to the talk page but allow linking using {{User10}} after saving the page the first time to avoid notifying but still have the template for handy userlinks. Comments? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to transclude a non-protected page in the edit notice, as this provides anyone the ability to inject HTML into the edit page. In theory, there are no security vulnerabilities in the wiki markup that would allow this to be exploited, but as part of a multi-layered security policy, I think it is safer to keep tighter control on who can modify an edit page. isaacl (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Lixxx235. As Isaacl well knows and you will surely discover, I have no idea what you're talking about and I really don't care to know. But if Isaacl says its not a good idea, I'm gonna trust his decision. He has been here from the start and is a bit of a historian. I'll step back and let you two work out whatever it is that needs to be worked out.. Buster Seven Talk 00:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
To editor Buster7: Got it. To editor Isaacl: Thanks, though there's no possible damage that could occur from an unprotected editnotice that would not be there on a userpage editnotice. I was doing this so that when I make the changes I plan to to that template, someone who sees why it's a bad idea can revert me to facilitate BRD because BRD doesn't work on protected pages. I'll get back with more details in a bit, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest first discussing the changes and only implementing them once there is agreement. My personal view is that it's better not to circumvent the page protection policy for edit notices. isaacl (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Award today

@Buster7: @Lixxx235: Would one of you two be able to distribute the award today? Running all over the place, and don't have time until later tonight. Thanks. Go Phightins! 12:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Li. Can you do it? Todays Awardee is one of my nominations. Its best if someone else does it. GoP...If it happens later tonite that's OK with me but I would rather it not be me. It might fall under the heading of protecting EotW from the claims (2) of being a "popularity contest". LOL. TRA! . Buster Seven Talk 13:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Will try; catching up on notifications after a (one day!) wikibreak, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows.....

User:Carptrash You would think that the Foundation with all its $million$ could afford a lousy $10 T-shirt. It is incredible that a 10 year veteran of volunteering thousands of hours to this site is, for some silly bureaucratic rule, deprived an simple honor that is due him. Background: Someone recently was awarded the Editor of the Week award. With the award comes a WP T-shirt, requested by The Editor Retention Project, and dispensed by the Foundation. In the midst of e-mailing back and forth about size, etc., the "Eddy" winner mentioned how happy he was to be receiving a new T-shirt because he had mis-placed one he had received YEARS before. "STOP!", the Foundation shouted. With not the slightest consideration of the editors feelings, the Foundation, in its stinginess, rescinded the valid request, and sent the editor, now shirtless, back to his workspace to continue the next decade of free labor. Hint: The editor in question worked diligently, with a magnifying glass at times, to create articles and lists. In spite of an ailment that would stop most, he continued doing what he loved----editing Wikipedia. Just the slightest investigating by the Foundation would have revealed his worthiness for a T-shirt that basically amounts to Free Advertising for Wikipedia. ReallY! Think about how insulting that is! I hope the editor steps forward and a campaign is mounted to get him his frickin' T-Shirt. More than most, he deserves it! This place can be so dis-heartening at times. Buster Seven Talk 12:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

With the award comes a WP T-shirt, requested by The Editor Retention Project, and dispensed by the Foundation. T-shirt? What T-shirt? I was EotW in early 2014 and I never got a T-shirt. Anybody else ever hear anything about a T-shirt? --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Melanie. Yeh, um, ahhh, about the T-shirt. Hmmmm... well see... its like this....back then we talked about tying in with the Foundation Marketing and Merchandising program but it didn't happen until just recently when Editor Li2354 picked up the ball and got things going. We probably should look into going backwards and getting all past Eddy winners a shirt. I'm not saying we will but its a good idea. Would you be willing to assist in the process?? Again, I'm not saying it WILL happen just that it might. . Buster Seven Talk 18:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, no worries. I just thought: If there was a t-shirt years ago, and there is a t-shirt now, was there supposed to be a t-shirt all along? But actually, the delightful surprise of getting the award was the big deal; no material goods were expected or needed. And if there was going to be a t-shirt involved, I would have expected it to be something like this. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: According to the Foundation, donor funds are involved and the funds come with strings attached regarding repeat recipients. Per Editor Carp; I also just heard from the wikifolks who are sending me something that is NOT a tee-shirt, which is a very nice way of cutting the Gordian knot that I had tied around myself. All ends well! . Buster Seven Talk 22:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Typos in the current awardee infobox

I actually came here to say: I can't find where to edit the current summary for Cowlibob, but it contains several glaring grammatical errors. It says His efforts to create lists for the movie world keeps Wikipedia in touch with todays movie aficionado. That should be "keep" (verb agreement with "efforts") and "today's" (apostrophe). Please somebody fix this. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I will fix it but it will be later tonight. Thanks for noticing and mentioning it. . Buster Seven Talk 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN Just a suggestion. I've made the corrections as you asked. Now I have a favor to ask of you. Can you find a free moment to go to Cowliobob's talk page and congratulate him? . Buster Seven Talk 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. I see he was nominated by the same person who nominated me. Cowlibob had better look out - Jim Carter's nominations tend to lead to adminship whether you want to go there or not! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a better way?

On all 3 sites for the Editor of the Week award (Nominations, Seconding, and Accepted) the thread shows the name of the editor. So...whenever a change is made to any of them, it shows up at the recent changes page...which means it could be seen (as an edit summary) by the proposed awardee and spoil the surprise. Is there some way to not show the thread in the edit summary or some way to language it differently so that the award stays a secret?? I don't know that it has ever happened, I just know it COULD happen and I would rather it NOT.. Buster Seven Talk 05:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You can always delete the default edit summary and replace it with different text. Also, although it is less convenient, you can edit the entire page rather than a specific section. But I assume if someone has a page watchlisted, they'll be following changes on it in any case, regardless of what the individual edit summaries say. isaacl (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
My concern was raised when I saw a recent nomination page edit show up as I was scanning "recent changes" for welcoming opportunities. I like your simple solutions and will implement them. Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 12:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

MassMessage

@Buster7 and Go Phightins!: I'd like to make it standard practice from now on to massmessage a reminder note to any EOTW nominators/seconds/supporters a message requesting them to congratulate the awardee when it is awarded, or maybe a day after being awarded. (To implement this, if there are no objections, I'll be adding a note to WT:EOTW/N saying that by nominating or supporting a candidate they consent to be massmessaged unless otherwise requested, and I'll make weekly requests at WT:MMS for it to be mailed. I can manually send ones that only have one supporter or something.) Thoughts? Objections? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think letting people know the outcome of their support is a good idea. Personally I don't think it is necessary to request that congratulations be given; it comes off as a bit condescending. Using the mass messaging feature might be a bit of overkill, given that a custom mailing list would have to be created each week, and a weekly task for one person is turned into two tasks for two persons if the delivery request has to be fulfilled by someone else. isaacl (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Getting editors to take half-a-minute to congratulate has been like pulling teeth for the last two years. With over 125 members in WER the awardee should be getting dozens of congrats rather than 3 or 4. I have been trying many different ways to get members to congratulate. I support anything that increases those numbers. I don't think its the least bit condescending. Editor Li has offered to do the work. I support the initiative. . Buster Seven Talk 04:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's all in the wording: "Please offer congratulations" sounds like a directive. An invitation like "Your congratulations on the recipient's talk page are welcome" would be better. isaacl (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm very open to changing the wording. I'm "slightly" busy due to ArbCom, but I'll get back to you ASAP, hopefully. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
While I am not a participant of this project, I would like to chime in wit my unrequested opinion. I really don't see the need for this, if someone nominates someone for EOTW, they should be tracking the status by watching the page. Alternately, you could ping them when it is approved. I guess it just seems too forced and insincere for my liking. In reality, if I nominate User:Example, I am probably watching their page anyway, also since it looks like it's only about five or six users at a time, I don't see the need to use massmessage to deliver. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, Kelapstick. This project is like a choir...all voices are welcome and needed. There have been over 120 Editors of the Week. I'm gonna guess that only about 15 nominators have visited the users talk page during the week following to congratulate. So, there is definitely a need. The best way to retain editors is one at a time. If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, go to Jweaver28's talk page and congratulate her. See how you feel. If 25 eddy-tors got into that habit there is no telling what the result would be. One thing's for sure. They would think twice about leaving. . Buster Seven Talk 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week April 26, 2015

This weeks EotW is Editor Technical 13. Editor Retention happens one editor at a time and the "Q" of accepted editors is down to a precarious low of 3. Is there some editor that you have seen in action that surprises you, that makes you nod in agreement, that stimulates you to finish that unfinished article? Why not nominate them for Editor of the Week? It couldn't be any easier. Just click the banner above and support some one deserving with a pat on the back. They'll feel good...and so will you. . Buster Seven Talk 13:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

This weeks award went to Editor Spanneraol, a fine example of the type of editor that diligently works behind the scenes to enrich the encyclopedia and keep it a source of statistical information. But the cupboard is bare and additional nominations are needed. Thanks to those members that have taken the time to congratulate the awardee during "their week". The genuine outpouring of support from fellow collaborators can go a long way in retaining editors. It doesn't take much time to congratulate and to thank, and the result is so rewarding. I'm sure we can all attest to the fact that individual attention by singular members is uplifting and challenging. Editor Retention most often happens one editor at a time...person to person...editor to editor. Dozens of EotW recipients have stated that the Editor of the Week award and the supportive messages have given them pause to reflect on continuing what they love to do---edit Wikipedia. Buster Seven Talk 12:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The cupboard is down to Two. There are currently zero nominations in the pipeline. Buster Seven Talk 12:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Milestone? Or just a number?

While roaming around...

in the back rooms of WP I found the following. Editor Invertzoo was a EotW recepient in back in June of this year. Buster Seven Talk 05:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcoming and mentoring, tried and true

Within WikiProject Gastropods, I am the welcomer and mentor, and have been for many years. I use the NewArtBot listings to find new articles that mention snails or slugs and then I look to see who is new who has started an article that seems to show the writer has an interest in slugs or snails. If the person is new to the encyclopedia, I welcome them using a template, and I also write a personal note welcoming them. New or not I invite them to joint the gastropod project, and tell them they can ask me any questions or leave any comments on my talk page because it's tough getting used to this new context at first. If they show any interest, I mentor them for as long as it takes until they feel comfortable: that could be weeks, could be months. If they join the project I welcome them to that too. I find this technique works great in terms of retaining editors. Yes it is labor-intensive and real warmth is necessary, not fake warmth, so not everyone is cut out to do this, but it does work well. My approach was written up a few years ago in the Wikimedia blog by Matthew Roth:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/03/08/the-kind-gentle-approach-to-retaining-new-editors/
Invertzoo (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Award box - ce needed?

In the award box naming the recipient at top right, shouldn't the word "themself" be replaced by "themselves" for proper grammar usage? Also "recognized for" is blank – should be perhaps "presidential article editing"? I have seen and corrected a couple of other mistakes on the page but I would recommend a copy editor review – I know you all want this to look clean and accurate. Hoppyh (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed the text to avoid the pronoun; thanks. isaacl (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"Presidential Article editing" added to Eddybox. Buster Seven Talk 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Potential Candidates

If you have someone in mind and you prefer not to be the nominee, put their name below. Caution:Do not link or ping the editor in any way. One of the clerks will draw up a nomination and contact you... Buster Seven Talk 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • User:AlexTheWhovian by B7
  • User:TWSX by B7
  • User:Sarthakniar by B7---a young kid, worth a look, India
  • DeCausa (talk · contribs · count · logs)...
  • Djembayz (talk · contribs · count · logs)...Always uses edit summary, Art= 71%, talk= only 13%, ingenuous use of links to empower or better explain a comment.
  • Mudwater (talk · contribs · count · logs)...
  • user:Josve05a}}
  • AmaryllisGardener (talk · contribs · count · logs)..286 articles, 2 1/2 years, Comments about HIM..."epic", "new chapter begins now (APOLOGY), "tks for the warm welcome", "tks for taking the time to give me advice", "you took the time to help", "I thought you were an admin already", "very useful contributor"
    Rollbacker, Autopatroller, Reviewer of GA's
  • Unbuttered Parsnip (talk · contribs · count · logs)...no user page (no vanity?), 8-20-2007 but active since MARCH of 2013, 11335 edits, uses summary 87%, Article 74%, he has been blocked,
  • Tigerboy1966 (talk · contribs · count · logs) - 1st article, 3/16/2011. Next will be #1085. Improved 100's more. 48% in Article space. WikiProject Horse racing and Boxing. Maintains and updates various templates. Montanabw and Fraggerlaura.
  • Kharkiv07 (talk · contribs · count · logs) - Just discovered w/ co-op mentee. Will vet soon.
  • User:Editorofthewiki - WikiProjects Coll Basktbl and Earthquakes...art/72%, wiki/8%, Sum/91%, 24K, Hubert Maga, Ryan Arcidiacono, 104 DYK's, Dr. Blofeld, EDDY, back in the swing after some lay-offs
  • Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs · count · logs)....not vetted at all. positive conversation w/ John of Idegon

Single-Purpose Editors in AFC

The topic of this note is single purpose account editors who come in to create an article about themselves, their company, their band, or some other topic that typically isn't notable. As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I haven't kept statistics, but I am sure that a majority of the drafts submitted at AFC are conflict of interest or autobiography drafts, to promote a business or to get an article about the author. These drafts are declined, and what usually happens is that, after two or three resubmits, they get the message that they or their business is not notable, and they go away. (Occasionally the submitter gets tendentious. That isn't a matter for this project.) I will comment in passing that many autobiography drafts that come in via this route, while in violation of the COI policy, are not promotional in intent, because the submitter simply doesn't understand what Wikipedia is, and that it isn't a social medium. However, in any case, the drafts, whether autobiographies meant as social medium profiles, or promotional drafts, get declined.

I have two comments that are relevant to this project. First, these editors result in a downward-skewing of any metrics on editor retention. They come in, they edit, and they quickly go away. One may conclude that this means that Wikipedia isn't a welcoming environment, or even that new editors are typically bullied and leave quickly. The departure of these editors doesn't prove that Wikipedia is an unwelcoming environment. It illustrates that many people misunderstand what Wikipedia is and how it works. As a result, analysis of editor retention metrics needs to take this influence into account. They don't indicate something wrong with Wikipedia, and there may not be much that can be done to retain them.

Second, however, there may be something that can be done to retain, or perhaps recruit, these editors. There could be a mechanism to welcome them to participate in Wikipedia in general. As it is, they generally don't get one of the usual Wikipedia welcome messages, because those are typically given to editors with red talk page links, or to editors who make talk page comments to which providing a welcome with links to guidelines and policies is in order. They don't have red talk page links, because the decline message appears on their talk page. They do usually get an invitation to the Teahouse, but then they are usually more concerned, at least briefly, with getting their article approved, until they give up. We should consider some way of welcoming these editors, who came to Wikipedia for a "wrong" reason, to participate in Wikipedia for a "right" reason, such as to edit existing articles. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. I've seen your hard work at the dispute resolution noticeboard ("DRN help needed and volunteer roll call"). You are to be commended for your efforts and for this focus on a situation in search of a solution. I think you've come to the right place. I personally welcome editors on a regular basis and as you describe I, like most, use "Recent changes" and the "red talk page" method to find candidates. I also check the contributions so assure some modicum of interest and staying potential. Both areas you mention are fertile soil to grow the editors of tomorrow. Whatever we devise should be as simple as possible to assure ease of implementation. Nothing stops a good idea more than tedious steps to achieve its fruit. With your experience and the input of WER and Editor of the Week members, I feel confident we can move forward. Let's see what others have to say. Note: This is a copy of Roberts Idea. To respond go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention. This idea has some real potential and deserves response from WER members. Buster Seven Talk 21:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC).

Add to the Queue

This Weeks Editor of the Week

...is Thewellman (talk · contribs · count · logs), an editor that brings a workmanlike spirit of camaraderie to all articles he is involved with. He is most deserving of a few messages of appreciation. Drop by his talk page and give him a well-deserved pat on the back and let him know he is supported. We clerks of WER-Editor of the Week enjoy giving out the awards and enjoy the cheerful responses that we get from most awardees. But can you imagine the pleasure that would happen if, every week, 3 dozen or more editors dropped in unexpectedly and said, "Well done. Thank you". As one recent awardee said, "It's always good to know my efforts are appreciated."

Veteran editors waste so much time arguing and kerfuffling (new word?). Sending good wishes takes ONE minute. Editor retention happens one editor at a time. Buster Seven Talk 11:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Transition under way

We are looking for volunteers to take on some of the peripheral steps to facilitating the weekly Editor of the Week award. User:L235 has graciously offered to administer the Award until September. Meanwhile, if some of the steps are spread out to others, the burden is less on the time of one editor. Recepient response just needs someone to watchlist the Awaredee's talk for a week at a time and record the Awardee's comments, good or bad, for prosperity. Then there is also the Editor of the Week Hall of Fame which takes a little more instruction and time but is easy enough, once it's understood. There was a reason that you joined WER/EOTW. Be a part of the process of retaining editors. It has it's own rewards. Buster Seven Talk 12:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Temporary change in EOTW award day

Hi everyone! As the interim EOTW facilitator, I am temporarily moving the EOTW award day to Saturday. It's a little weird to call someone EOTW for the "week of" a Saturday, but this way offers much more consistency for myself (due to my schedule and my availability). I'm accordingly moving the infobox posting days one day back each as well, to Sunday and Monday (although I may sometimes do both posting to the main page and to the user talk on a Monday if my schedule requires). Thank you to everyone who has made this project work over the last three years; Buster7, as the one who has faithfully delivered this award week after week, I want to thank you in particular. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Miscellaneous note as well, I have added a "nomination_page" parameter to the eddybox template, which, if provided, will give a permalink to the nomination page. This will not impact any previous templates. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hall of Fame section

I saw a notice at Benzband's talk page about this project and I'd be delighted to help out. I do have a question: could someone explain why the Hall of Fame tab is only showing banners through July? Lepricavark (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The procedure for updating the Hall of Fame is described in Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Announcing recipients. As part of releasing the recipient infobox, it has to be copied to the next available archive page. isaacl (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Lepricavark. The Hall of Fame stopped in July when I stopped creating the "eddyboxes" (as I called them). Give me some time to remember the process of creating them. I'll get back to you soon. Buster Seven Talk 01:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There are about 15 eddyboxes at Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/sandbox. Some are ready to go, some need work and some are empty waiting for completion. Feel free to do what you can to revive the Hall of Fame. Buster Seven Talk 01:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Templates are not my specialty, but I'll certainly keep it in mind. Lepricavark (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Waive two-week wait?

We currently have no accepted nominations and did not award anyone last week. In order to avoid going two weeks without a recipient, I suspect it might be advisable to push someone through soon. Perhaps Ohconfucius, since his nomination originally came months ago and was just removed from being on hold. Thoughts? Lepricavark (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • He has 287,257 edits. The award was not intended for someone with over a quarter of a million edits. How about one of the new nominations...? Buster Seven Talk 02:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Cambalachero has been seconded (by me), so perhaps we could proceed with that editor. Lepricavark (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of nominees

Regarding the recent trend for nominations to be discussed beneath the nominations: the reason the process was set up with a separate page for discussion was to provide some separation from the nominations. This can help avoid the nominators from feeling that they are being criticized for their nominations. I know some English Wikipedia editors might find it a bit different, but recognition programs thrive when they make the process enjoyable for all involved. isaacl (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes good sense. Does this apply to seconding nominations as well? Lepricavark (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
If you go back in the history of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations page a bit you will see that I used to set up a thread for each nomination with the date of the nomination and a line for a second, third, etc. So...the nomination page was just the nomination...any seconds, discussion, etc went on the Nomination talk page. Buster Seven Talk 06:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll do some editing ASAP as an example of what Isaacl is referring to. It kept things in order and prevented a mess. Buster Seven Talk 06:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Instructions to nominators

Regarding this edit: my preference would be to reduce the amount of emphasis given to who is not eligible to be recognized (centering and bolding seem like overkill). Would anyone object if I modified the text to work this into the instructions in another way? (I still think the preloaded instructions ought to suffice, but I know there are many who just don't read instructions.) isaacl (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. I was just responding to a nominators complaint that the instructions were not clear....even though they are! Buster Seven Talk 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Chores

Fact: Dennis may be retired but the work of properly maintaining what he created still needs to be done. The Editor of the Week arm of WER is really the only active part of the project.

  • Chores are necessary. When they don't get done for months, it's very embarrassing for the project. Three areas that have been abandoned are the recipient response page, the creation of the eddyboxes, and the Hall of Fame. Since my semi-retirement from WP activities, no-one has stepped up to do those chores. How can we solve this dilemma? I think we need to think about simplifying the way we do things here. We should start a discussion at least about the following most urgent areas:
  1. -Recipient Response Page - When the project started it was gratifying to read the responses of those receiving the award. Rather than let the positive comments fade into the archives I decided to save them along the way. The result is a cornucopia of positive forwarding comments. There were a few times when I was able to point naysayers to the RRP as proof that WER was doing its job. Its not a difficult task...it just requires a watchful eye on the recipients talk page and then a simple "copy and paste" to the RRP.
  2. - Do members here want to upkeep and maintain the Hall of Fame? I was strongly in favor of it when the EotW was started, but that was while I still had the time and the energy to take care of it. Creating the Eddyboxes and then inserting them into the WER mainpage, the recipients talk page, and the HoF took considerable time and effort. Seeing the embarrassment it causes when it is not taken care of, I now think it might be one of the things we need to sacrifice for the sake of simplicity. Its a nice place to visit but I don't want to live there. Comments? Buster Seven Talk 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to continue the eddybox tradition, but I'm not up to doing that myself and I won't complain if it gets phased out. I will, however, try to fill in some of the gaps in the recipient response section. Lepricavark (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Buster7: I came to this talk page just to comment on what you mentioned above. IMO, let's not give up EotW. I'll help with its upkeep for now. --JustBerry (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward

(edit conflict) Hey, JustBerry. Be assured no one is giving up on EotW. Editor Lepricavark has graciously offered to facilitate for the foreseeable future. I'm sure he would appreciate any help or new ideas you can give. Thanks for your offer to assist in upkeep. 1) keeping an eye out for good EotW candidates is very important. Sometimes we have a backlog of 15 in the current nominations; sometimes only one. Right now I think there are four. It always felt good when we had a good cushion moving forward. 2) the "eddyboxes' that Lepri talks about above were a bit of a chore to create. They functioned as an advertising for WER and EOTW but I'm not sure how effective they were. And, without the eddyboxes, there is nothing to transfer into the Hall of Fame. I'm just not sure they are worth the time spent creating them and moving them to the nominees page and then to the HoF. 3) Ive always hoped to create an abundance of WER members that would visit the nominee and offer congrats. It takes just a moment and is very rewarding for both giver and receiver. Buster Seven Talk 21:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: Thanks for your reassuring message, and an additional thanks to User:Lepricavark for assuming this responsibility. I'm certainly here to help, even if the todo list expands uncontrollably. I'll address some of Buster7's points in order, if that works. 1) I'll certainly keep a more proactive lookout for more editors to nominate. 2) I saw the eddyboxes on the Hall of Fame yesterday, and they seem to have stopped after this past July. I think our best bet would be to create eddy boxes for nominated editors backwards (from Jan 2017 to July 2016), so that we're certain that we're not missing out on the more current stuff. Would you like me to take a shot at a few in a sandbox and show you? Also, I wanted to confirm that the images within each eddybox are intentional, i.e. related to a field of interest or fact related to the editor. 3) We'll certainly have to build a community for this one. Anything like a mass-message to congratulate an editor may not be as genuine as intended. The best bet here may be to gain traction via up-to-date eddyboxes and more extensive nominations. Then, the congratulations will come in if we post the winner on the front page of the WikiProject, which many editors are presumably viewing by then--at least every now and then. Then, within the announcement on the project front page, we can have an "offer congrats" button that links to a new section (customizable with preloaded template if we decide) on the accepted nominee's talk page for other editors to offer a custom congrats and save the page. For now, those that are active on the project can certainly offer congrats to current/upcoming nominations by clicking on an announcement (which we need to finalize and post) of the nominee. However, to achieve the "large traffic" of warmth that you speak of, the above strategy may be a way to go. What do you think? --JustBerry (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

JB...This was the construction site/sandbox where i created the Eddyboxes. Feel free to have a shot at rejuvenating. Yes, the images were either from the field of interest or a favorite image from their talk page. As you might recall, the eddybox was posted on the frontpage of WER but without the button you speak of. What I think is that I'm for anything that enlarges the circle of editors retaining editors. Buster Seven Talk 21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Buster7: Will try a few out there and keep you posted. Thanks, JustBerry (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@JustBerry: I don't currently have time to digest and respond to the entirety of your post as I'm heading out the door, but I might need clarification of your comment about congratulating upcoming nominees. Just to be clear, we don't want upcoming nominees to know in advance of their receiving the award. Maybe you already knew that and I misunderstood your comment, but I just wanted to make sure that was clear. P.S. It's great to have you on board. I appreciate your enthusiasm for expanding the project. Lepricavark (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Sorry for the ambiguity. By "upcoming," I was referring to keeping the process going over the coming weeks, months, etc. (not notifying the editor before them being awarded). --JustBerry (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I assume you're watching this talk page too. Feel free to chime in on the other discussion below as well! --JustBerry (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: I placed a note regarding this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Editor_of_the_Week_Discussion (on the main project talk page). --JustBerry (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the recipient notification infobox, in addition to publicizing the current Editor of the Week on the editor retention project page, it is also a nice badge of honour that the recipient can keep to commemorate the recognition. Regarding people viewing the project page: there isn't much reason to do so as there aren't any regularly updated sections on it, other than the current Editor of the Week back when the infobox was being updated (for example, do you visit it regularly?). As the project is more a hub for discussion, the project page will probably remain as a resource rather than a frequent destination. Maybe we could start a mass message list whose recipients would receive a copy of the weekly infobox and a call for contributions (nominations and supporting statements). This would provide a weekly reminder of the Editor of the Week recognition, and perhaps trigger more participation. The problematic part is getting people to subscribe. We could send a one-time message to User:Buster7/WER Nomination mass mailing, updated with the most recent Editors of the Week, asking for sign ups. isaacl (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This could be another list of members to reach out to as well (removing duplicates): Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Members. --JustBerry (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Fame: Moving Forward

@Buster7: @Lepricavark: I have created a box for Cambalachero at User:JustBerry/EOTW (permalink). If that seems to work, I can move it over to the Hall of Fame and WP:RETENTION sandbox (and we can go from there accordingly, e.g. putting the box on the WP:RETENTION main page). In the coming weeks, I can certainly help create boxes for awarded nominations (of course, only after the editor has been awarded, notified, etc.). What do you think? --JustBerry (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I like it. As to moving it to the Hall of Fame, there may be a roadblock. I refer you to the 3rd bullet at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Announcing recipients. I will @Isaacl: who can better explain the process. Buster Seven Talk 23:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Isaacl: @Buster7: Well, I have just performed the move to the project sandbox here at least. Can we create void infoboxes for the editors "in between" (week of July 23, 2016-week of Jan 8, 2017) for now? Hypothetically, we can leave archive spaces (one per week since the week of July 16, 2016) and possibly fill them later once the project is revitalized. Do you forsee a roadblock in this plan? --JustBerry (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
As you can see from the Hall of Fame page, it has been prepopulated with the inclusion of many sequentially numbered pages, so whenever one is created with a new infobox, it will automatically get included in the Hall of Fame. However if you're planning to backfill the missing ones, in order to insert them in chronological order, as you suggest you can leave a gap in the numbering sequence for them. Alternatively, the missing infoboxes can be inserted manually in the right place on the Hall of Fame page. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/Archive 142 for Megalibraygirl was the last one used. Does that help? Buster Seven Talk 23:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: @Buster7: That's precisely what I was thinking, so there doesn't appear to be a roadblock (at least right now). However, why does the "week beginning" for Template:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/Project_main_page/Archive_142 start on a Saturday? I'll stick with the established convention for now. I'm proposing the following:

Leave Blank (for now)

  • July 2016 (remainder, i.e. 23rd and 30th): 143, 144
  • August 2016 (6, 13, 20, 27): 145, 146, 147, 148
  • September 2016 (3, 10, 17, 24): 149, 150, 151, 152
  • October 2016 (1, 8, 15, 22, 29): 153, 154, 155, 156, 157
  • November 2016 (5, 12, 19, 26): 158, 159, 160, 161
  • December 2016 (3, 10, 17, 24, 31): 162, 163, 164, 165, 166
  • January 2017 (7): 167

Fill in

  • January 2017 (14): 168
And so on...

Regarding filling in the blanks, I can create and coordinate a WP:RETENTION EOTW backlog todo list for making more boxes for those blanks, reaching out to members of the WP:RETENTION project, and reach out to other editors, who may be willing to help out. What do you think? --JustBerry (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: @Buster7: I am posting updates of my changes to the WikiProject below (so that we can easily discuss any change if needed):

@Isaacl: I compiled the update list (only one ping). Regarding the notice, I don't think it's so immediately obvious to new users not familiar with the project. --JustBerry (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the announcement day, the Editor of the Week recognition was originally announced on Sunday. L235 (Kevin) changed it to Saturday sometime around June 2016.
The problem with adding redundant text is that it's extra noise: too much text makes it more likely people will tune out (most people don't read any of the boxes at the top of a talk page anyway). It's standard practice to discuss the contents of a given page on its talk page, in any case. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for being unclear; please don't ping me as I will see your new posts anyway. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but what are the week days for each of the bullets, e.g. "Remove the nomination at the top of the queue"? --JustBerry (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, I've created a todolist for the project here. Regarding the notices, if you don't mind, I'll wait for a few others to chime in before finally removing. It just seems more direct, rather than having people read multiple paragraphs to understand the same thing that has been repeated. --JustBerry (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Buster7 presented the infobox on a later date, as detailed in the third bullet, but I originally wrote the instructions assuming that all steps would be done at once when a recipient is announced. Although it makes sense to "Remove the nomination at the top of the queue" as the first step, before announcing the recognition, it doesn't really matter if it gets done later.
In accordance with the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, I'd as soon remove the notices earlier. I don't see this as a scalable approach: pointing people to different talk pages from each other, and trying to keep a summary of the talk page up to date feels like unnecessary overhead. isaacl (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 Removed notices. --JustBerry (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Explanation for Buster7 presented the infobox on a later date... The Award was initially distributed on Sunday. When first used, and for quite some time, the infoboxes (aka eddyboxes) were distributed on the Tuesday following. Buster Seven Talk 02:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Fame: Moving Forward (Part 2)

Also, if there isn't one already, it may be helpful to create a todolist for award recipient notification and backend work to make sure the procedure is carried out each week. Do you have any objection to me creating one? Honestly, I'm just trying to make sure the project stays up and running to avoid any void weeks in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a to-do list would differ from Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Administrative procedures (of course, as needed, these procedures can be extended or expanded appropriately). Are you thinking of a new to-do list for each week? As I had originally thought one person could complete the entire checklist of steps to announce a recipient on Sunday, I had not broken it down into steps for different days of the week, or for different people to work on. However, even at the start there was an issue with getting recipient infoboxes created, and as the number of active participants shrank, the responsibility for the infobox was handled by Buster7 separately. It may be useful to change the last step of the "Processing nominations" procedure to "Complete an infobox for the newly accepted nomination...", instead of just starting a draft (creating the infobox is the hard part; including it in the desired places is just mechanical). isaacl (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to a new todolist for each week (same page, just refreshed for the following week once complete). I think this may help resolve the backlog because often times, the administrative procedure gets stuck because someone is unsure about something (or forgets about something), and the process halts. By having a todolist, people can choose to assume the week's task by themselves or complete specific sections of the list (chronologically, of course). A symptom of this apparent backlog is the plethora of infoboxes that were not created for months. For now, there is a backlog infobox todolist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/todo. --JustBerry (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Specifically for Editor of the Week, the real problem is a lack of volunteers, so your participation is appreciated. When there were just two persons involved, they knew how they were splitting the work, and then it was just Buster7 doing everything. Going back to two or more persons, if there is going to be a clear split in duties, then perhaps breaking up the procedures to align with this split would be useful. Tracking every individual task for each week can be helpful, with the cost of additional overhead; whatever works for those involved is fine. isaacl (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say we can keep the checklist until things are moving more smoothly, i.e. when the checklist truly seems redundant. I have set up the weekly list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/todo as well in case Buster7 wants to chime in. --JustBerry (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

New dates at WP:RETENTION/todo

Buster7, do the new dates at WP:RETENTION/todo work though? --JustBerry (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really. I don't see the purpose of designating a certain task for a specific day. Friday, for instance. Traditionally, the newly accepted nomination has been placed at the bottom of the queue of accepted nominations (AccQu) as soon as the two-week seconding period has passed. That can happen any day of the week. Why wait till Friday? It would be better to designate tasks to volunteers and trust them to be diligent. The task would be to pay attention to the time stamp of the nomination and make the move to the Accepted Queue at the appropriate time. Also, starting the initial draft of the infobox for the newly accepted nomination could happen at the same time...again, based on the time requirements of the editor doing the task. In the past, when we had a dozen or more in the AccQu, I would work on the infoboxes as time allowed, knowing I had weeks until they were needed. I'll comment more ASAP. Buster Seven Talk 05:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the todo list is not to restrict WikiProject activities, but rather putting a system in place that decreases the chance of tasks from being left out, i.e. how the current infobox backlog came to be. Another clarification to make is that the issue isn't trusting/delegating tasks to users, but making sure that users are able to contribute to the larger project. For instance, the infobox doesn't get created until Sunday, another editor delegated to editing/proofing the draft isn't able to help out with their assigned task. Yes, the "reviewing editor" can go ahead and create the infobox themselves, but--in this case--the whole person of having an "assignment list," so to speak, is weakened. I have changed the wording on the todolist to "by the end of Friday." As a note, I have not included the seconding period as a part of the todolist, as I realize this is a continual process. Again, we don't have to have these lists in place forever, but I think it may be useful for the time being while the project is preventing the infobox backlog from increasing any further. --JustBerry (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Another note: Editors on the todolist aren't assigned to tasks. Putting time boundaries on tasks, rather than user boundaries, leaves the project open to others to chip in and fill out the tasks that need to be done by that day. Of course, if the tasks for Friday are complete, you're more than welcome to complete the Saturday tasks. The time deadlines puts, essentially, a sort of logical chronology to the weekly tasks. --JustBerry (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
My personal preference for the recipient infobox would be for it to be completed before or by the time it is moved to the accepted queue, so when the time comes to announce the recipient, it can be done via a set of mechanical steps that anyone can do. Regarding planning: as of now there are only three volunteers who have identified themselves to be actively involved in processing and announcing recipients. Accordingly, it may be simpler if each week, each of you specify when you will be dealing with whichever task -- seconding nominations, writing infoboxes, moving nominations to the accepted queue, announcing a recipient. This way, at the start of each week, based on the current backlog state and everyone's plans, the need for any adjustments can be determined. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I see your concern. How might you reorder the sketched timeline currently layed out on the todolist? Feel free to make edits directly. From there, we can work out the who's-doing-what. For this week, I'll be happy to take on creating the infobox of the editor that seems to be next-in-line as of today (TylerDurden8823). In the long run, coordinating an outreach effort to editors registered as project members will help strengthen community involvement and overall activity within WP:RETENTION. --JustBerry (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget. Hardhats must be worn in the Construction Area. Buster Seven Talk 21:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Something I just uncovered. I think we missed User JoJanJoJan back in July of 2016. He should have been next in the queue behind Megalibrarygirl. Not sure how that happened but I will insert him in line behind Tyler and he will get awarded next week. Buster Seven Talk 22:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Turns out JoJan is an Administrator. Buster Seven Talk 04:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, these tasks need to be done by Sunday:
Here are the remaining tasks to be done:
  • Create infoboxes for the rest of the nominations
  • Review any incoming nominations and the editing history of the nominees and comment.
  • Set up the Nomination talk page with Nominated/Seconded/Comments for any new nominations.
  • Move any nominations that are ready to be accepted to the accepted queue, ensuring that an infobox is completed
isaacl (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, that ping didn't work for some reason. Lepricavark (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Pings only work when the post adding the ping is signed. isaacl (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft ready at Template:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/Project_main_page/sandbox#Editor_TylerDurden8823. --JustBerry (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Buster, Isaac, or Leprica: feel free to peer review the infobox above (or confirm you've reviewed it). All of Fridays tasks are done, so we might as well chip away at Saturday's. Regarding the timeline changes you wanted to make, Isaac, do you want to create a weekly schedule todolist draft to edit prior to pushing it to the current working todolist we have for this week? --JustBerry (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion is for the three of you to maintain your task list: those doing the work have the final say in how to break it down :-). isaacl (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The infobox looks good to me. Is there an important reason why the posting of the infobox is being done separately from the posting of the recipient notification? Wouldn't it be simpler for me to do the Sunday tasks on Saturday along with the Saturday tasks? Lepricavark (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: The two were previously separated prior to creaitng the todolist. It seems to be a second congratulations to the user the following date (gratitude sustained over a slightly longer period of time, I suppose). --JustBerry (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. To me, it seems best for you to post the infobox on the user's talk page since you created the infobox. If it post it, it may give the impression that I made the infobox. Besides, the infobox is a significant form of recognition, and I think it is better if the two big templates come from two different people, even if just to make it seem more nice for the recipient. Lepricavark (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to split up who delivers what, that's fine. I wouldn't worry, though, about giving the impression that the person delivering the infobox made it. It's pretty clear that it's being delivered on behalf of the Editor of the Week initiative, with potential contributions from any of the involved members, as well as drawing from the nomination text. isaacl (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That's true, but I'd still prefer to split up the duties if @JustBerry: agrees. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
As with most of these things, it was primarily what worked out best for those involved: the person who replaced me in handling the announcements was comfortable with notifying the recipient but not dealing with templates, and so Buster7 took over that role, on a slightly different schedule. If returning to the original plan of releasing the infobox at the same time works best for you now, then go for it. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That's right. The Sunday award/Tuesday infobox schedule was just a simple way to extend the congratulations and increase the level of thanks. No need to continue that schedule. Whatever works for the future of increased involvement in the EotW process is fine with me. Buster Seven Talk 23:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
A clarification: "replaced" is overstating things a bit—the two of us both handled notification duties; I took over the infobox duties after the original creator stopped, and so in some weeks I did both. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Surely. Feel free to pick any task at WP:RETENTION/todo, complete it, and mark the task as completed by you. --JustBerry (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Fame layout

Regarding recent changes to the Hall of Fame layout: the reason the page was pre-populated with transclusions of future archives was because Buster7 found it easier to manage that way: no weekly copy and paste to the Hall of Fame page was required, and there was no need to figure out when and how to start a new row. So just be aware we may wish to replicate this again, to facilitate maintenance in the future if the current surge of volunteers drops off again. Also note the administrative procedures should be updated accordingly. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Alerting primefac of this discussion, as he had made an edit to the Hall of Fame page earlier (removing ifexists). --JustBerry (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no issue with the #ifexists for future pages. I just removed the unnecessary 140+ uses where it did exist. Might be worth adding that to the cleanup todo. Primefac (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Oh, don't get me wrong: I wasn't accusing you or saying what you did was wrong. Just wanted to keep you in the loop, in case you were interested in helping out every now and then with technical issues. --JustBerry (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we should add a note and suggest that the backlog list be expanded to include a link to the corresponding archive page for each weekly infobox i.e. Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/Archive 143 so that the new Editor @Zppix: knows about it while he is creating the eddydox for July 23rd's SummerPhDv2.0. Of course this holds true for all future Hall of Famers that will be created to fill the existing gap. Also, in the past, the eddybox was displayed on the mainpage of the WER project...and then it was displayed on the recipients page on Tuesday. An example is at User talk:SusunW/Archive 19#Editor of the Week. (Sorry. I haven't done it in a while so the specifics may be a little mumbled by my memory and I'm not explaining it well). Buster Seven Talk 21:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Scheduling

Regarding the first part of this comment: we did discuss it previously. In the end, we can work with whatever the involved volunteers are able to do. Ideally this would align with a weekly recognition, but even that could change if a regular time commitment is an issue. I don't think the task of creating an infobox was forgotten last week; just no one signed up to do it. Maybe some volunteers would prefer to work from the backlog instead of doing weekly tasks? As long as the to-do lists are kept current, all the pending tasks will be accounted for. (Now less talk, more work! :) isaacl (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Lepricavark and I managed last week's weekly procedure via the todo list. For tomorrow, I have created this infobox. Issac, would you like to peer review this week's infobox and/or work on infobox #145? --JustBerry (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, for numerous reasons, I have stepped back from the operations of this recognition. I can do a copy edit pass on the pending infobox, but I won't be able to review the content. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Note I removed the image that was being used, as it is copyrighted and not licensed for free use, and so cannot be used in the infobox (this type of usage does not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for non-free use). isaacl (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest File:Mona 2001.jpg. Its on the editors talk page (and in public domain) which, in the past, is a great source for a favorite image of the recipient. Buster Seven Talk 19:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved --JustBerry (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

SuperHamster

Not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week. ClueBot took the nom seconding post away. @Buster: Undo? Remove/modify archive bot configuration? --JustBerry (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Remove/modify archive bot configuration. It may have been changed recently in error? Buster Seven Talk 22:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 Resolved P.S. If you need to manually archive nominations on the talk page or main nomination page (after moving them to the accepted nomination page or rejecting non-seconded/invalid nominations), feel free to use User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver. I tested it, and it seems to work. It only works with the bot configuration on the top of the page, so there's no need to remove that from the page. To disable the auto-archiving-by-age functionality, though, I modified the config. --JustBerry (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Recipient user box

Regarding this edit: the instructions to use "subst" were to reduce the need to maintain backwards compatibility of the user box when it is modified. That being said, as it doesn't currently have any parameters, backwards compatibility isn't an issue right now. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Seconds Anyone?

Two candidates for Editor of the Week are awaiting vetting and seconding. Please see the Nomination page and respond at the talk of that page. Also, consider nominating that special editor that you have discovered. It only takes a moment and is very rewarding .... for you and for them. Thanks. Buster Seven Talk 20:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I just added another candidate. According to the rules of EotW they can only receive an award if they are seconded. The recent candidates may not be well known or visible because they have their noses to the grindstone of article editing. They are busy working, not complaining. It's about giving back to them for their time. You may not know or have experienced them... but they deserve at least a moments notice, more so than the many mis-fits we waste our time with. Buster Seven Talk 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame

For many reasons entries into the Hall have not happened since late 2016. But that has changed. Editor Primefac has devoted some quality time, today, to revise the method of plaque creation making it a simpler process. A question arose about whether to link to the specific editors nomination ...or... to link to the generic nomination page. Ive pasted it from my talk page below. Buster Seven Talk 22:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

EoTW/HoF thoughts

When you're linking to the nomination page (at least based on the ones I've dealt with) it's best to link to the Special:PermaLink/ where the nomination was made. Otherwise you're just linking to the generic Nom page without the specific user mentioned. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

MyOUR initial idea was to give an editor that was viewing the plaque (aka "eddybox") somewhere to go (the generic nom page) to make a nomination of an editor in their "neighborhood". But I can go with the permalink...no prob. I'm just always trying to advertise The Nom page. Buster Seven Talk 21:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting point. Looks like about half are linked to the main page, half are linked to the specific edit. If the intention is just to link to the nomination page in general, then it doesn't really need to be a parameter... might be worth discussing at the project talk. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The text was originally a link to the nomination page, in order to let people submit nominations. This edit in June 2016 added the nomination_page parameter and changed the text to link to the value of the parameter. Personally I would like there to be a link to the nomination page; if there is a desire to link to the nomination text, then perhaps it can be added somewhere else, such as in the "Recognized for" heading. isaacl (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Engendering new nominations and keeping the Accepted Nom page fully "loaded" is a constant requirement. It only makes sense to have "advertising signs" out there in WikiWorld. With that in mind I will change back to the "Make a Nomination" page for those I am working on and those to come. Buster Seven Talk 15:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

New banner

I've pre-loaded the banners at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations, so creating new pages is a bunch easier. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've also created a shortcut to the userbox; {{User:UBX/EoTWBox}} is a little easier to type out than the entire address. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a new focus

The Editor of the Week program has operated nearly continuously for over four years now; this is an enormous achievement for the Wikipedia community, where most initiatives fade out rapidly. My sincerest appreciation goes out to everyone who has been involved!

There have been some snags, though, mainly around the area of who is eligible for recognition. As described in the criteria, the original intent was to recognize editors that are "less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown". Part of the implication of this intent was to focus on newer editors, to assist in retaining them (in accordance with the overall WikiProject). Over the years, however, there has been a desire to recognize well-known editors, and at present many of the recipients are experienced editors who have received a lot of recognition. Accordingly, I think it may be time to revisit the goals of this initiative to fit what people want to do.

The other main issue is the required overhead administration of the recognition. Although Editor of the Week was designed to have low overhead, we failed to anticipate the dropoff in participants on the administrative side, and so an even lighter weight process may be desirable.

Accordingly, I propose replacing Editor of the Week with a WikiSalute program: every two weeks, a new page will be created, and editors can add a brief section saluting an editor that has done excellent work. All editors would be eligible for recognition. We would probably ask that an editor not be recognized more often than some period of time, say six months or a year. (It wouldn't have to be rigourously enforced, but if we see someone being recognized week after week, we could take action then.) The frequency with which a new page is created can be adjusted to match whatever period seems to garner a significant number of salutes.

If the program is able to attract regular salutes, we could reach out to the Signpost and ask if they could include a list of the first say five persons to be recognized in any given Signpost period. This would give the recognized editors some more visibility. However I don't want to tie my proposal to this; I think it should be evaluated without assuming this will happen.

The WikiSalute program would open up recognition to everyone, and provide a central list of people being thanked, with a brief description, that others could use as inspiration. On the administrative side, overhead would be reduced to creating a new page at the start of each new recognition period.

In theory, this program would not have to replace Editor of the Week. In practice, though, as the two initiatives would have a large overlap, and given the difficulty in finding people to engage in long-term administrative support of any Wikipedia project, I think it would be better to retire Editor of the Week.

What does everyone think? The biggest risk will be that the program will drop dead in its tracks. Hopefully those who would have nominated editors for Editor of the Week will transfer their nominations to salutes, and that we can pick up some new nominators. This will probably require a publicity push, though, reaching out to past Editors of the Week and frequent nominators. I am happy to participate initially on the administrative side, but to help ensure continuity, I would want others to rapidly assume these tasks, to make sure the process put in place doesn't rely on a single person. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

While I have some misgivings about saying goodbye to 'Editor of the Week', the fact that your post has garnered no response until now suggests to me that this project is not very active anymore. Your proposed new format sounds good so far and hopefully it encourage more participation than we have seen here at EotW. I would, however, recommend taking any new project out from under the WER umbrella and letting it stand as it own independent project. Lepricavark (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Some further comments: I'm sure Buster7 has seen this thread and I'm eager to hear what he has to say. I'll also ping MelanieN, a frequent nom. I like the proposed WikiSalute program and I'm willing to help make it become a reality. EotW isn't garnering much participation and, while I am proud of what we have accomplished here, I really want to see an editor recognition program that draws in widespread participation. I don't know if it is feasible, but I think it is worth a shot. I would recommend closing the EotW nominations page and awarding the currently approved nominations at the current rate of one per week. At the end of that time, we can see how the new WikiSalute program is progressing and make a final decision on whether it is time to mark EotW as historical. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I am also nervous about making changes to a program that has run so long. However it's clear at a minimum that the original criteria has fallen by the wayside, as we are now awarding long-time editors for a second time, and so I am yielding to practicality. Yes, I agree if we proceed with the WikiSalute initiative then we should freeze Editor of the Week nominations and finish up these last recipients. We can redirect nominators to add their recognition statements to the current salute page. In addition to creating a new page for salutes when needed (*), clerks can drop a note on the talk pages of recognized individuals to make them aware of their salute.
(*) I suspect the frequency of posted salutes will be very bursty, so initially I suggest not having a fixed time period for starting a new page, but starting one once the current page reaches some limit.
There are alternatives where we could keep the title of Editor of the Week, but open up the criteria and drop the seconding requirement. However I think renaming the recognition better reflects the "no big deal, just thanks for a job well done!" intent. isaacl (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I like the name WikiSalute for the new program. Lets let it be its own thing. I still want to hear from Buster and Melanie, but I'd also like to get the ball rolling on this new project sometime soon. I suppose there is no rush, but patience is not my strongest point. Lepricavark (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion. I occasionally make nominations to EotW but have not otherwise been involved in the editor retention project. I do in fact tend to nominate long-term users, and I apparently recently nominated someone for the second time, by accident; there doesn't seem to be an easy way to search for previous nominations. I suspect the same will happen with your "WikiSalute" page unless there is a searchable index of previous recipients. I frankly doubt if I would participate much in the WikiSalute program, but if it is successful you will attract new nominators. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
As a tear rolls down my cheek and into my salt and pepper beard I regretfully submit to the demise of my good friend and companion for the last 5 year, Editor of the Week. There are 5 accepted nominees in the queue. I hope someone will be able to award them over the next month. I'll create the eddyboxes/banners at the appropriate time for the last 5 entries into the Hall of Fame. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I hate to hear you sounding so disheartened. Part of me is also sad to see EotW go, but I really think a new WikiSalute program can embrace the goals of EotW on a more widespread scale. Buster, you've played a crucial role for the entire duration of this project and I want to thank you for that. I'll continue awarding the remaining accepted nominations. We've had one more nomination, currently awaiting acceptance. I'm willing to let this last one go through, but I'm going to mark the nominations page as closed to further nominations. Lepricavark (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Oops - I missed this as I had not added this page to my watchlist. I will be sad to see this brought to an end as well. Would it be possible to combine the Wikisalute with an Editor of the Month or Quarter? The thing that I liked about EotW is that it is a group acknowledgement. Barnstars are nice and appreciated but they are a one-to-one award. I note that their presentation has dropped off as well over the years. Now my suggestion may not be viable so I will say a HUGE THANK YOU to everyone who has worked on this project over the years. I think it was well worth the effort and I truly appreciate all that you have done. MarnetteD|Talk 22:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
In practice, the Editor of the Week initiative has a very light reviewing process for nominations, and so personally I don't feel the selection of recipients has historically carried a lot of additional weight over a barnstar. It was nice, though, when the recipients received multiple thanks on their talk pages, generating a bit of hoopla over their accomplishments.
There are many potential pitfalls in an Editor of the (aggregate period) award that is based on some kind of ranking, and so I am not confident that a useful program could be established. Once you start ranking editors, it is easy to upset those who get overlooked. So I'm not planning on raising any proposals around this type of program. Although I could be wrong, I also suspect it would be difficult to get enough participants to support its administration. isaacl (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm still very nervous about making changes; the nice thing about having one recipient per week is that a backlog can be built up, relieving the need to fill the pipeline every week. I am worried that as with most new initiatives there just won't be any uptake—for example, why would anyone give a WikiSalute instead of just getting the instant gratification of awarding a barnstar? In theory it could be considered easier than giving a barnstar, but it suffers from being a completely unknown, new process. So maybe a rethink is needed... isaacl (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominee looking for a second

Before any changes are made to Editor of the Week can someone take a moment and second the current nominee? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations and then go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations.―Buster7 ☎ 15:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Lepricavark (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What's next?

We're now down to two accepted nominations left in the queue, with another one that can be accepted as well. It is probably time to identify the next step. There's been, unless I missed it, no further developments as far as WikiSalute is concerned. Has that idea been abandoned? Should we reopen the nominations page here? Lepricavark (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow it escaped my notice that a message had been posted closing nominations. After additional consideration, I believe it isn't feasible to have a recognition initiative that requires regular submissions. Only by having a backlog can we keep the pipeline flowing. Thus I propose revising the criteria by de-emphasizing the intent to recognize unsung heroes (I'd probably keep something in there about it, but with less prominence) and removing the restriction on administrators being nominated. We could choose to rename the recognition to WikiSalute, but for now I am not suggesting a change to having one recipient per week. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Having recently been reminded of what an awful place Wikipedia can be, I don't want to have any involvement in the planning for whatever changes are made. I'm willing to stick around to present the next few awards because I said I would do so. After that, I would like to resign from having any formal role at this project and to edit in quiet for a while. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I am so sorry about whatever happened Lepricavark. I can only thank your for your work here and in all parts of WikiP. It looks like this program may be winding down so I just want say how much I enjoyed watching the posts made by the recipient and, even more so, those who congratulated them. The work put in by those of you who oversaw this program was more than worth the effort. MarnetteD|Talk 03:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the much needed kind words. I hope that this project won't be discontinued. Maybe after a break, I'd be willing to return to contributing. It would be nice to get a chance to nominate a few editors, something I haven't really done while serving as the distributor. Lepricavark (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts with Editor of the Week! Please do submit nominations when you can; the queue could use filling. isaacl (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Glad to see the Nomination window has been reopened ―Buster7 ☎ 04:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This project ain't goin' nowhere. Why should we stop when its actually quite successful. @Lepricavark:, I hope none of the reminders you hint at above have anything to do with your efforts here at EotW. I want to thank you for being such a reliable partner in making this part of the WER project work. I completely understand you wanting to take a break and look forward to your future nominations. Over the years there have been almost 250 editors that were selected to be awarded. You and I both know that it doesn't get done without time and effort. It doesn't get done without someone getting it done! Granted, changes can and need to be made....maybe the seconding part and vetting part and the "no Administrators" part need to be revamped...maybe weeks can go by without an award distribution...but, on the whole, Why end it??? @Primefac: just recently added new ways to make the actual editing of EotW much easier. A recent recipient got a dozen congratulation visits. Sure...the cupboard is bare but that's easily rectified with a little search and discovery on my part. I don't see any reason to stop. Change? Yes! Discontinue? No! ―Buster7 ☎ 04:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that the reminders have nothing to do with EotW. I'm glad to see the project is reopened. As I said, I am willing to stick around to present the next three awards because I said I would do so back when we were planning to close this project down. Lepricavark (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have revised the criteria based on this discussion; please have a look and provide any feedback you may have. Thanks!

We could use a new drive to collect nominations; anyone interested in running with it? isaacl (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 bare. 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)
JB. You must be a youngster. You most likely have never been displaced from a job that you have enjoyed and felt quite adequate at. I will continue to manage and give out the Eddy Award for now. Dozens of editors have assisted over the years. Their help was appreciated for as long as it lasted. As I have said, the biggest favor you can do is to nominate editors (which you have done). You needn't worry any more about the EOTW arm of the WER Project. It's in good hands.―Buster7 ☎ 05:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's not broke, don't fix it. Buster handles this just fine. The only concern is his age, but (Please Lord, no) if he were to die tomorrow, Issac knows how everything is done. I have a fair idea, and learn quickly. As it stands right now, the Eddy works far more smoothly than most of Wikipedia. Please find something more productive to do. Leadership requires a mandate, no matter where you are. This isn't a video game where you take over by force. You'll never gain a mandate to lead if you continue to act like you already have it. John from Idegon (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
My doctors appointment is next week. Hope I make it! :-)―Buster7 ☎ 17:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the degree of participation in any ongoing program is a concern. Thus it is important to document the steps of any related processes (which I had done initially, and others have refined it since). An ongoing updated to-do list, however, isn't crucial to preserving continuity. If the list is not updated and it's on the side, it has a lesser impact. But if it's stale and is on the main page in replacement of the documented steps, then it can cause confusion. (On a side note, as I recall, Dennis had already reduced his participation considerably long beforehand.) isaacl (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What's Up at the Queue

This weeks EDDY award went to Editor Wilhelmina Will, a fine example of the type of editor that Wikipedia depends on to continue as one of the greatest sources of knowledge ever created. If you have someone in mind to nominate, feel free but do it with the knowledge that it will be a month or so before they actually receive the award. Thanks to all those users that have been nominating fellow editors over the past six plus years. Your choices have been exemplary. Additional thanks to those members that have taken the time to congratulate the awardee during "their week". The outpouring of genuine support can go a long way in retaining editors. It takes only a moment to congratulate and to thank, and the result is so rewarding. Individual attention by singular members works. Editor Retention most often happens one editor at a time...person to person...editor to editor. ―Buster7 ☎ 17:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Banned users

SNAAAAKE!! has been community site banned and indef blocked. What is the usual procedure here? Are they defrocked? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • SNAAAAAKE received the award over a year ago. AFAIK we have no defrocking procedure. No return request will be issued. Once the Award is handed out it can be placed with pride on the User page mantle or used as a doorstop just like any RL trophy. ―Buster7 ☎ 03:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
OK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination #333/Discussion about repeat candidates

NOMINATION:SusanW has started a staggering number of quality articles, including 187 DYKs, 40 GAs and recently their first FA, virtually all of them aimed at increasing the representation of women on Wikipedia. Amazingly, their FA – on an important topic – was created from scratch less than a year ago and researched from recently uncovered documents - some barely in the public domain. The most modest and unassuming of Wikipedians, yet a tireless and skilled researcher. Effusive in their appreciation of suggestions, assistance or assessments, they shy away from the more bruising aspects of Wikipedia. I think that EotW would be a fitting recognition of their efforts. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am humbled Gog the Mild by your praise. I was recognized as an editor of the week in 2016, so I kind of doubt that I am eligible again, but I truly appreciate your kindness and mentoring. SusunW (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Given the amount of good work you have done in the three and a half plus years since then another must be overdue, although I suspect that Buster will be reluctant as the fun element of surprise has clearly disappeared. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I came this morning to heap praise on this nomination. SusanW is a preeminently qualified teacher of the Art of Creating WP articles. The few worthy articles I have created were with her personal tutelage and guidance. I lacked the fortitude necessary to continue article creation under her wing but I cherish the experience and am proud of the results. I'm sure I am not the only editor SusanW has trained: many quality editors stand on her shoulders. It's not a stretch to say that she and her students account for thousands of well written and extensively sourced articles. Another EOTW award is rightfully overdue. This will not be the first repeat...but it may be the most deserving. TY Gog. It will be awarded next year since there are currently enuf to fill out this year queue. We can work on it before then.―Buster7 ☎ 12:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
If Buster7's heap of praise counts as a second, then I'd like to third this. I've worked with SusunW quite a bit this year, she is incredibly knowledgeable, productive, supportive and keen to pass on knowledge. GirthSummit (blether) 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
How will we establish a criteria for repeat-noms? ——SN54129 13:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that the criteria for a repeat nom are the same as for a first nom, but "an editor can be recognized as Editor of the Week no more than once in a 12-month period". Implicit seems to be the idea that only work since a previous nom is considered when considering the "worthiness" of a subsequent nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Right. Nominations historically bubble up from the WP community. Sometimes the queue is overflowing into the future and sometimes its a race (for me) to find a qualified candidate. Abundance has been the norm this past year. I'm reluctant to create to many rules and restrictions on the nominators that come here, in good faith, with their candidate. As long as the nom has "some meat on the bones" it will pass muster. I do a cursory visit to the history and talk page and some minor vetting. Rarely some other editor will step in and question the qualifications of the nominee. There is a HOLD situation right now that has lasted months and that I'm not quite sure how to fairly handle.((After these many months I think the fires of NOTNOW have burned out)). Each Nomination is different. Some fly thru the limited process while a few get hung up on details. My feeling is that everyone deserves (and responds positively) to a pat on the back. ―Buster7 ☎ 13:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Typos

@Buster7: towards the end of the first paragraph in the EOTW template Money emoji's username is spelled incorrectly as Monet emoji. Also, I think you meant to say bill but bil was written instead. Clovermoss (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

JezGrove

Hi, I'm very touched to be the recipient of this week's award but I can't imagine why the Boris Johnson article is mentioned as a notable work in connection with my edits. There is also a misspelling of my user name. But regardless, my sincere thanks for the award. Best wishes. JezGrove (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So sorry Jez. The Boris Johnson article is noted at xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/JezGrove as one of your top edited pages Fixed the banner. Thanks for letting me know so I could fix. ―Buster7 ☎ 19:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Attention EOTW Members

Over 350 individual editors have received an EDDY award. This week @Isaacl:, @Clovermoss: and I have decided to award the 150+ members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 (which we just did). In the past, some of you have visited the recipients talk page and offered your congratulations and your personal "pat on the back for a job well done". Well!!! This week you can thank 150 editors all at the same time and place. Let's reach out to this Associate Project and thank them for their efforts and their high standards of expectations from each other. Editing these type of "Hot Topic" articles is not for the meek and mild as we all know. Take a second and reach out to them. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

question re possible feedback

can anyone please tell me if there are any pages where the editing community provides general feedback on articles? I looked for such active resources, but have not found any. Please ping me if you reply. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 20:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Note this is the discussion page for the Editor of the Week recognition. A better venue for general questions is the WP:Teahouse. I'm not clear what you mean by "general feedback on articles" beyond the article talk pages, so when posing your question at the Teahouse or some other help forum, you might want to clarify this aspect. isaacl (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Can IP editors be awarded EOTW?

I'm asking because I know of an IP editor who has been consistently amazing for more than a year (2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63). I don't know if an IP has been given EOTW before or if there's a precedent for this, but I would like to know. Clovermoss (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Nature of recognition

Just as a reminder: as described on the project page, Editor of the Week is a recognition award to thank editors for excellent work. It was deliberately designed as more of a pat-on-the-back recognition, versus a big-deal award, to avoid people competing for it. Thus it's not necessary for a recipient to be beyond reproach, or a primarily mainspace editor, or someone with a high edit count—in fact, its original criteria specifically included newer editors, by specifying they should be lesser-known, and this is still encouraged. As described in the process, nominations should describe specific tasks and behaviours being recognized, which results in a greater appreciation of the recognition. It's OK and even encouraged to recognize an editor for one or a few good things where there is a sustained pattern of excellence underlying it. isaacl (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination #411

@Buster7: I support this. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • StarshipSLS. I appreciate the second. This is an example of a nomination worthy of moving to accepted. Editor since...% of edits in mainspace (not just in talk)... FA's and GA's... what type of articles he favors... a few examples of his work... personal interplay (if any) ... comments by others (which are easily found at the nominees talk page. ―Buster7 ☎ 01:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Header change

I decided to be a little bold and change up the header at Template:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/Header. Now EotW uses the same header formatting/template as WP:WER which honestly looks super sleek.

Let me know what you guys think/is it okay? Maybe we want to adjust the colours a little to differentiate ourselves?

Soni (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back Soni. Your improvements are always welcome. I've spent the last hour + going all the way back to Kelvin Song and the earliest days of EotW...reading and remembering. Its late and I have to get up early. Thanks for the nomination. ―Buster7 ☎ 07:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Buster7: That's exactly what I did about 3 days ago, and ended up landing onto a bunch of conversations I wanted to get back to. I'm likely not going to be around "forever", but it's nice to know something we created is both still going strong and making a positive contribution to Wikipedia (and editors). Makes me want to just find a page or two, and start editing it with someone
But also... I thought Eddy nominees were not supposed to find the nom page O.o How did my nominee find it, did I mess somehting up?
Oh and I boldly switched to a red that feels more like the red in our logo but is legible enough. It'll help set the header apart from the WER header but still keeping the similarities.
Soni (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're kidding or not... Buster7 processes the nominations so of course he's going to see them. Also, for those who might have watchlisted the page at some point but don't pay close attention to every edit, current practice is not to put the nominee's name in the section heading. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
A few assorted notes: the changes cause a horizontal scroll bar to appear for me, with my usual browser window width (the previous version would have done so too, if the width had been a bit narrower). The best solution is probably to remove some tabs. Personally I would prefer a slightly smaller font size. I feel the red background draws a bit too much attention to a navigational element. I haven't checked if the red/black contrast ratio meets W3C guidance, but at least to my eyes, the contrast is a bit low for easy legibility. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Preparation for self award after Holiday

  • User:Buster7 always shows the enthusiasm, hard work and dedication necessary to make a positive impact on all of WikipediaWorld. For almost a full decade he has held the Wikipedia:Editor Retention Project (this little niche project of ours) together through sheer will and dedication. Hundreds of users and editors have felt personally recognized and better due to Buster's efforts. Surely dozens have continued to edit (or increased their editing) solely because Buster was one of the people to notice that they deserved a little recognition. He has been a one-man-army over the last decade of "Eddy"; keeping up nominations, posting, and maintaining regular tabs on every aspect of this Wikiproject. More than that, he's a tireless contributor to all of Wikipedia with mainspace edits spanning back 14 consistent years and numbering over 60000. No wonder it seems like he is forever present, making good solid contributions wherever he goes. I can think of no person more deserving of praise for this. Soni (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This award was seconded by
  • User:Eddie891
  • User:Gog the Mild
  • User:Theleekycauldron
  • User:Panini!
  • User:Sennecaster
  • User:Worm That Turned
  • User:John Cline
  • User:Nosebagbear
  • isaacl
  • KevinL

New EotW topicon

Buster7, MarnetteD - Made it all myself! Life and recent news was having me down and I was thinking about EotW and I like the the happy flower-thingy icon and I like topicons so I made an EotW topicon! I think I did it right? Go check out Template:Editor of the Week topicon and make sure. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The only issue I've run into so far is that I want the EotW topicon on my User page - User:Shearonink - to go next to my 10 year laurel-leaves topicon...I think it is automatically sorting first because EotW comes first in the alphabet before the other topicons. Does anyone here know how to change that? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I guess I could change the name of the topicon from "Editor of the Week" to "Wikipedia:Editor of the Week"... But is changing the name "good EP-editing practice"? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone interested in how to enable individual users to sort the top icons on their user page, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Question about a top icon I created where Shearonink's question was answered by Xaosflux (in summary, top icons templates should support a |sortkey= parameter). isaacl (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Isaac. Xaosflus added a sortkey parameter to the topicon so folks who wish to add the EotW top icon to their user page or wherever can now sort the icon according to their personal preferences. I could have changed the name of the icon so it would automatically sort according to the alphabet-names of the top icons but decided not to do so - "sortkey" takes care of it and editors can personalize their own sorting. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Good work Shearonink!! Your work makes me nostalgic about that era - more than 12 years ago now I think - when the creation of userboxes went totally gonzo. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/Archive_3&oldid=1137385898"