Talk: User of the Month

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

Uhhh, no. Joey is UotM for February. It is decided at the end of the month... Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 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.--Bigm2793 10:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bigm on this one. =P Col. I Ross I ^Talk 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"... Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 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 [1]. 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. Col. I Ross I ^Talk 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.--Bigm2793 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. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 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? -- Azeratos ^{T C E} 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. 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)

Formatting

I would like to suggest that we change the formatting of a vote for UOTM. I believe that it would be beneficial to reorganize votes to resembles a vote between two candidates rather than for or against one and a separate for or against another. In this way any user can oppose the election of one candidate simply by either not voting or voting for the other candidate. This style of voting is used by governmental elections and as such has proven efficient. An idea for how it might look:

Featured User - Month

Candidates

1. Candidate One - reasons for nomination.
2. Candidate Two - reasons for nomination.
3. Candidate Three - reasons for nomination.

Voting

• Candidate One -- 1

• Candidate Two -- 1

• Candidate Three -- 1

Candidate One - reasons for vote Candidate Two - reasons for vote Candidate Three - reasons for vote (and so on, until the month approached and a winner was chosen)

Note: I'm not saying we should limit the number of candidates to three

Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 03:12, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

This should be combined with Scottie's proposed revisions. I agree that users should only be able to support one user and there should be no oppose votes. Capt. Bord ^{T C E} 03:18, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Bord, however I do not believe that a poll should be utilized. Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 03:20, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, the poll is a really bad idea. Sorry Scottie. Capt. Bord ^{T C E} 03:22, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the poll wouldn't work. However, we do need to consider getting more people involved in UotM. If we're only getting the same ten people voting, I'm afraid that's not enough to keep UotM worthwhile. --Scottie theNerd 04:25, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Where do I officially propose this change? <Darthkenobi0><Talk> 18:01, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm hearing a ghost talk. Using my magic brain I'll send a telepath to this ghost. OH GHOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAKE A FORUM POST!!!!!!!! OH GHOST!!!!!!!! MAKE A BLOG POST!!!!!!!!!!!!. I wonder how many idoit points I get for typing this. Peter Griffen Boy^{Radio Operator}

Yeah, as PGB said make a new forum post at Forum:War Room.      22:05, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

This Month's User Of the Month

There has been a slight mistake in the results - Griever has 20 supports and 2 opposes, but Jose had 11 supports and 0 opposes. That means Jose had a 100% success rate, higher than Griever's, which means he should have been user of the month.      16:44, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on the method used to count Oppose votes. Griever had more users supporting him, and if the negative votes subtract from the total, it's still 18 votes in favour vs. JJR's 11. It's unfair to judge based on percentage support because a candidate with 1 support 0 oppose would have a higher "success rate" than someone with 99 supports and 1 oppose. It makes sense as a tie-breaker, but not as a primary method of ranking. --Scottie theNerd 12:07, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

This is the very reason why I think that there should not be any oppose or neutral votes. Candidates should win by yes votes outright the person with the most votes win period. And there will be no Slight mistakes when tallying the vote. Why must we make such a simple thing as selecting a UtoM so arduous?

And BTW Scottie, I agree with you on your comment. Talk 05:16, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

How come you can only nominate users from the 19th to the 23rd? Poketape ^Talk 01:33, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Nominees are judged based on their contributions for that month. It's unviable to nominate users before the end of the 3rd week of the month as not enough time has transpired to allow users to review the month's contributions. It's a reverse of the old system, in which users were nominated in the first week, judged on their wiki careers and then no one gave a damn about open UotMs. --Scottie theNerd 06:36, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

But what if a user was nominated one month and loses, but somebody still thinks that user is good? Does that mean he would have to wait to nominate that user until the 19th? And what if some people forget to nominate/vote? It seems to me that his might not give enough time to people. Poketape ^Talk 00:26, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

If a user does not win UotM, they will have to be nominated again based on their contributions the following month. Nominations are based in the current month of UotM, not for previous achievements and work. If we allowed users to be re-nominated for being runners-up in previous UotMs, there's no point in having UotM because, as I've asserted many times before, everyone eventually gets it. The nomination timeframe is crucial because it gives all nominees a fair chance -- not some getting put on the page before others. Anyone can nominate, so if one user forgets to nominate, surely someone else will. As far as voting goes, the majority of votes are placed within a week of a nomination, as seen in previous UotMs. If we can't get enough users to vote within the voting period, then we have to serious question whether UotM is worth running. That's seven days for users to pop in and add their signature. If they forget, then the UotM goes on regardless. --Scottie theNerd 07:13, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Tick-Tock

I think there has been tension on how to nominate. Doc. Richtofen 20:49, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

I just realised something

Nobody is nominating anybody for some reason --Soldier 11:39, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Nominations only open on the 19th. --Scottie theNerd 11:24, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oh... okay sorry then. My bad >.< --Soldier 11:25, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Its past the 19th and no nominations are up :O --Soldier 02:42, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Nominations

If you are nominating, please make an effort to actually refer to the nominee's contributions this month. UotM is a recognition of users who have contributed significantly in that particular month, not as "career" recognition. If possible, please make references or links to articles they have worked on, War Room threads they have been heavily involved in or projects they have worked on.

I suggest avoiding the following in nominations:

• The user is a "nice, friendly person": UotM recognises achievement, not personality.
• Has edited a lot: Quantity does not correlate to quality.
• The user is "intelligent": not relevant to UotM. We don't give awards based on IQ.
• Other personality traits or characteristics
• Off-site or non-wiki-related contributions (e.g. artwork, signature creation, Youtube videos, etc.)

I really don't want to see UotM return to the way it was before, in which it was impossible to lose once you were nominated since you could get re-nominated the following month and win it then, since nominators only listed career achievements and personal qualities that were unarguable, which also meant that new users never had a fair go. UotM recognises what a user has done, not who they are. It is not meant to follow the same criteria as a Request for Adminship.

I'm disappointed in the write-ups for our current nominations. I really hope we're not voting for people because they're friendly and intelligent, because that would debase what UotM is meant to stand for. --Scottie theNerd 10:00, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's also User of the MONTH. It should only look at achievements for the past MONTH.      10:30, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, you already mentioned that. Whoops... But yeah, users seem to be ignoring the fact it's user of the MONTH.      10:33, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

What happens if

everyone is awarded UotM? Who will be picked next? Dudebot • Talk 23:02, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

-_- Let's see

This situation is impossible, new users come daily. Also, there doesn't have to be a user of the month. Pierogi^Talk 23:23, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

We don't just run out of good users... more and more always come along...      23:24, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

As i see it, a user is awarded UotM for a month. Is there a hidden thing that says you cant be a User of (lets say...) March and June? Of course not, so if that user has been outstanding for 2 months, you shouldn't hesitate for nominating them or voting for them again. DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   23:29, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Never actually read the UotM requirements. DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   23:52, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

What happens if no one gets voted UoTM? Jar teh marksman 23:50, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

There's no user of the month. Pierogi^Talk 23:58, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's kind of obvious. Jar teh marksman 23:59, June 14, 2011 (UTC)