Call of Duty Wiki talk:User of the Month

Since we skipped a month am I considered February's User of the Month also? 02:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhhh, no. Joey is UotM for February. It is decided at the end of the month...  06:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, UotM is supposed to be decided at the beginning of the month along with the FA and all that stuff.-- 10:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Bigm on this one. =P 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhhh, what?!? You decide who the best user of that month was. It is a recognition thing for the deserving user. Otherwise it really means nothing as an "award"... 18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * True, although other wikis don't exactly do it that way. Look at RS Wiki for instance. They elect their User of the Month before that Month begins . I will have to check other wikis on what they do. But I understand where you are coming from. Ex. A business's Employee of the Month. Not chosen before month but after. Although, we need to reach a decision sometime soon about this. 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually UotM isn't really based on who was best that month, its based on overall contribution to the wiki and the month after they win UotM is when they are listed in recognition.-- 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It really depends on a wiki's decision, but most wikis have it so that the user is recognized the month after they were chosen. And Ross is correct, an employee of the month is usually acknowledged the month after being selected. 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, can you nominate yourself for User of the Month? I know you can do it for Adminship, so does the principle still apply to this? 02:54, December 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot nominate yourself.--Poketape 03:45, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Voting for yourself
I know you can't nominate yourself, but can you vote for yourself?--Poketape 04:23, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Possible changes?
Here comes Scottie with the reform hat again.

Actually, this isn't something I'm pushing seriously, but it's worth thinking about in the future. Currently, the process for UotM is for a user to nominate another user for next month's UotM. The user with the most votes becomes UotM and the process repeats. It's been that way since the beginning as far as I know, and apart from some gaps in the UotM list, it's produced one User of the Month for every month.

What got me thinking was looking at some of the recent UotMs and realising that there's no actual rule or guidelines on how UotM is conducted. There are restrictions on how can be nominated, but no regulations on how they can be awarded UotM. All it comes down to is the person with the most positive votes at the end of the month gets their name on the front page for a month. So far, so good, right?

The problem: it's a sham. I don't mean that the whole process is fake. What I'm suggesting is that the UotM is a glorified popularity contest that has no legitimate basis. Here are my reasons why:


 * 1) Users can vote for more than one nominee, and it isn't uncommon for users to vote for every nominee.
 * 2) Nominees are not nominated at the same time. A nominee that gets a UotM nomination at the beginning of the month has more time to gather votes than someone who gets put in a few weeks later.
 * 3) UotM nominees are generally viewed for their entire time on the wiki rather than their activity for that particular month.
 * 4) Only a handful of editors actually vote.
 * 5) There's no real thought or reason behind selecting winners.

Reason #3 is what struck out to me as a problem for future UotMs. Looking at the archive, there's a clear trend: if you get nominated for one month and you don't win, you'll probably win next month as long as you're not an ass. While it's great to encourage editors to continue contributing and to recognise dedicated, quality editors, we're actually being exclusive by looking at entire wiki careers for a monthly award. The general pattern is that several editors will get nominated for one month, and each one will be given a UotM in the following months simply because they were runner-ups in the previous vote and were re-nominated for the same reasons. That is why I think the process is a sham -- it's more about when a nominee is awarded UotM than who has done the most for the wiki.

Reason #4 is something that needs to be seriously considered. Rarely does a nominee actually get more than ten positive votes -- and consider that most voters will vote for multiple nominees, it's not a stretch to say that less than 20 people are involved in UotM. The February 2010 UotM was a bit suss because two users got the same number of positive votes and the draw was only averted because EightOhEight voluntarily stepped down, only to be unanimously awarded it a month later. It's no fun when you're guaranteed an award and makes it less meaningful.

Reason #5 is best summed up with the comments that go with the votes: User gets nominated because he's generally a nice guy. Users vote yes because he is a nice guy. Again, there's no contest because all nominees get positive votes for being nice guys. Very little to with do actual merit.

tl;dr version
There's no real contest in UotM. If you don't get it this time, you'll win next month.

Proposed changes

 * Change the nomination process. Nominees must be put forward by other users by a given deadline. Nominations should include a reasonably detailed explanation as to why the nominee could be considered worthy of UotM for that month.
 * The UotM vote becomes a poll on the front page with links to each nomination. Discussions can occur on nomination pages, but voting is doing via poll.
 * Nominee with the highest votes is awarded UotM.
 * Process repeats for the next month.

It addresses the problems I identified above in the following ways:
 * 1) The poll only allows one vote per user.
 * 2) All nominees are granted the same exposure due to the deadline.
 * 3) Nominations are specified only for that month.
 * 4) A poll is more accessible than an open-voting system.
 * 5) Descriptive nominations are encouraged and debatable.

--Scottie theNerd 17:12, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you, but the poll idea is heavily flawed - polls allow unregistered users to vote. Apart from that, everything you have states is totally true and should work. 18:13, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * True, though I actually don't see much of a problem with allowing unregistered users to vote for UotM. Account and edit requirements matter for more important wiki-issues such as RFAs and AfDs, but UotM, in my opinion, could benefit from being more open. We could easily replace the poll with the current open-voting with a one-vote only rule though. --Scottie theNerd 18:24, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, just watching this UotM is making me cry inside. There's no real voting and no real contest. Just give both of them a gold star and end the UotM. This is no way to recognise our most dedicated contributors. --Scottie theNerd 18:21, March 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the ideas, but I think having unregistered voters vote is bad. The system, though flawed already, would only become more flawed. It's better this way because at least we can stop unregistered users. The polling system would also allow multi-abuse. [[File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gif]] Poketape Talk 22:11, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I considered the potential for abuse. However, I'm naive enough to assume that no one will be bothered vote-stuffing a non-reward recognition title. As said above, however, we can remove the poll option and restrict votes to one-per-person in our current format. I do think that revision UotM is something we ought to do soon. --Scottie theNerd 05:25, April 1, 2010 (UTC)