Forum:Concerning deadlines for UOTM nominations

A constant issue concerning UOTM is the deadline for nominations. Right now our current rule is that we have 4 days grace to nominate whoever we want for UoTM. However during this month, a user's nomination was cancelled initially because it didn't adhere to the 4 day rule but was ultimately reopened as there were no other nominations. Previously we have had months where no users were nominated, so the wiki should standardize how the deadline rule is kept when there are no nominations.

19:27, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
If there is no nominations by the 23rd then we simply should extend the deadline for that month. 23:10, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * sounds like a plan. --KλT 23:12, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Para and Red, this will make it easier if there are no nominations 23:16, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, definitely. NaRusskom (talk) 23:20, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

poop - as I already said on chat. That "deadline" is only in effect if there are active nominations. If nobody's been nominated yet and the deadline is over then we simply nominate somebody. -- 00:30, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

per Redskin 00:36, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Per Red/Azuris. 03:01, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

more poop - per azuris. -- 03:11, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Poop catastrophe - Per Azuris. --MLGisNot4Me talk 09:33, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comment/neutral - In my opinion the issue isn't the deadline, it's the awards rules. Because every user can only get it once in their wiki lifetime it makes choosing a user for UOTM harder and no one gets nominated by the deadline. I admit Deathman did do a lot of work this month, but every other user that has really shown to have been working hard that month gets nominated within the 19th-23rd 'deadline'. New users that hang around aren't massively common and most of our regulars have won the award. As well as taking off the deadline I think we should also make the award an annual award so a user can get the award again next year if they once again show dedication for a full month. 10:30, November 26, 2012 (UTC) Callofduty4 and Batman also mentioned people that deserve that award but don't get it, making the award annual will only heighten that problem. Again, CoD4 mentioned the problem where some of our users deserve to get the award again, making it annual won't solve that either. 07:06, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the thing as well, we've come to a point where we both don't have many users who haven't got the award yet who should get it and also where we have users who do have the award who could deserve it again. 11:05, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is a problem, some users work hard every month. For example, over the summer we had so many users (like me) getting an average 50-100 edits a day working there arse's off. Couldn't it be unfair if we have a highly-respected user (Ex: CoD4, Sam, Kat) that they work hard and just take the nomination from other users that work hard. How can we fix this? 15:23, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can have a user be available for nomination again after 6 months or so, instead of just being available for nomination every month. 15:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * OR, you could read my original comment which said make the award ANNUAL. I never once stated that the award could be gained every month month, I said it would work if it was once every year. 16:49, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that a user's activity is not constant over a year, it would be very hard to judge who has done the most amount of work in those 12 months.
 * How slow do I have to make this? I am not suggesting a user of the year award. I am suggesting that we make it so the award can be obtained once a month every year. 07:28, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I support that then. 11:51, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) ChiaForHisThirdUotM 20:30, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bohater, thats not helping, nor necessary.-- 20:47, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * "more poop" 20:49, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * lmao 20:53, November 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Lol...poop -- 20:55, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * ಠ_ಠ 11:56, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't realize he's quoting what you posted, do you :\ 02:38, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

We're getting off-topic. If we want to increase the number of times a user can get the award, we can do so in a different forum, but in the interest of getting legislation passed we should really be focusing on the deadline. Personally, I feel as if what is already written on the UoTM page is sufficient, and the nomination deadline should be extended until someone is nominated. Joe Copp 21:48, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Completely abolish current limit, create a new limit from the 15th to the 25th - I feel that a limit is necessary so that one user cannot just "snipe" the election. I think that some voting time is needed, so I think that increasing the time allowed while keeping some form of limit is the best way to go. 02:44, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support getting rid of limit, neutral on nomination range - I feel that if the limits of one award for only one user is gone, the need to extend the nominations would be unnecessary. 19:08, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * You can still go 1 month without any real stand-outs. Sometimes it's just a case of everyone pitches in around the same, even if they're all allegable for the award. It's why this one came so late, everyone who could get it performed at an equal level. 22:09, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Idea - So I thought the nomination could be held for the whole next month: for example, if ExampleUser001 worked really hard for January, other users could nominate and vote for him (to be January's UotM) for the duration of February. This way there would be plenty of time to nominate and vote for someone, and the nomination could describe what he had done the whole January, instead of with the current system only being to describe the first 19-23 days without editing the nomination later on. --MLGisNot4Me talk 18:22, December 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose this would be beneficial since the 24th-31st is generally disregarded anyway, since those events haven't taken place at the time of nomination. I'm definitely in favor of having the vote the following month, but I'm not certain I like the idea of having the whole month to do so. Joe Copp 02:42, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum to point: So someone who worked really hard in January wouldn't receive UotM until March? Joe Copp 11:28, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought about that too. One solution could be that the nomination/vote time is 15 days, and receiving UotM half a month after the actual period isn't too much. --MLGisNot4Me talk 12:07, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the nomination period has to be that long. I would recommend having the nominations, for UotM of a respective month, on the first week of the following month (e.g. Nominations for January's UotM on Feb 1st-7th.) 17:15, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

After looking over the other ideas I still stand by and believe the best option is the simple idea of allowing nominations to continue on throughout the rest of the month until someone is nominated. 03:34, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support MLG's Idea - I like that, a lot. 22:52, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support Azuris' Idea - I don't think we need a longer nomination period or nomination range. Make it stay simple. Per Azuris. DarkMetroid567Talk 18:51, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

General Comment - As the UOTM format was mostly my idea, part of the reasoning behind the deadline was so that recent and relevant contributions were considered rather than UOTM being a lifetime award. The problem at the time was that a runner-up would practically be guaranteed a subsequent UOTM because of their past involvement. Above all, it's an encouragement award to spotlight a contributor's work -- not to put that person above other editors (see COD:AEAE). That said, I don't see the deadline can't be changed. --Scottie theNerd (talk) 14:56, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Moving On
Ok, so generally we have three proposals for modifications to the current 19-23 deadline:
 * 1) Keep current deadline, extend nomination period only in the event of no nominations
 * 2) Abolishing current deadline and creating new nomination period
 * 3) Completely overhaul current deadline, shift nomination period for Month A to whole of Month B

and another proposal to make the award annual so that a user can obtain the award once per year.

Since this forum has been a little inactive, now would be the best time to move on to the consensus of proposed modification to the nomination period and opinions on making UOTM annual. 15:50, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

2nd vote
Also to move the forum on I'm making a vote for the other suggestion brought up. Allowing UOTM awards to be won more than once on an annual basis. 15:58, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Vote
21:48, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

--Scottie theNerd (talk) 04:25, December 28, 2012 (UTC)