Forum:Modifications to UOTM
User of the Month is a method to recognize users who have contributed quite a lot to the wiki. While it has admirable goals, its methodology is highly questionable. I never liked UOTM, and said that I would not accept any nominations until after Azliq does. I believe that in a wiki where RS:CONSENSUS and RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY are so widely followed, having such a page decided purely by vote count is a complete eyesore. I would like to modify it so that users are selected by consensus rather than solely based on vote count.
The modifications that I'm proposing are as follows:
- Remove the vote counters.
- Allow oppose and neutral comments.
- The sysop that closes the month's nominations cannot be a nominee for that month.
- Sysops should exercise their judgment when closing nominations that have close consensuses for more than one candidate and consult other sysops as necessary.
- If it is impossible to determine the clear winner by consensus, then the two or more nominees tied for first will become co-UOTM's.
This will solve many of the problems that I see with UOTM. Of course, should this pass, it will NOT apply to the nominations for the month in which is passes (i.e. if it passes in October, then it will not take effect until November). --LiquidTalk 22:08, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - UOTM isn't an RfA, and this will make it too much like one. Thus I can't support that (in it's current state-I am currently writing a suggestion). Being a user of the month doesn't give you any tools, or really change anything, and thus it's even less of a deal than adminship. HaloTalk 22:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
- I realize that, but the current system is a slap to our principles of consensus. --LiquidTalk 22:21, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion - My added suggestion is to change it to featured users (meaning to make it more like the new featured articles and like featured images has always been). There is no reason to have a strict limit of 1 user per month (unless in rarer cases where users get same number of votes). In this case I would support adding opposes and neutrals and such. HaloTalk 22:21, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - the whole reason oppose votes were disallowed is because it resulted in hurt feelings and people getting pissed at each other. UOTM is not something major like a Yew Grove discussion is. Andrew talk 22:43, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - True, we are not a democracy. But honestly, it's OK. We don't need to invite the drama llama to absolutely every aspect of the wiki. UOTM is fine the way it is; simple, effective, and a great way to reward someone for their selfless and amazing work. ajr 22:51, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - I see Liquidhelm's point, but I also fear that opposes will start flame wars.23:43, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Comment on why we kept it monthly Sometimes a person might nominate another just as a favor, when in fact the nominated really has none of those attribute we look for. Because we disallow opposes, having it a "contest" between two or more people was a way to vote for the person actually working for the wiki instead of the guy getting vote counts from his friends. Switching to a featured article/image format would not give us a way to block that.--Degenret01 23:50, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
- I see. As much as I hate the monthly thing, I saw some problems with making it another way. (One being that we have tons of really good editors, and having like 8 people get it in a few weeks might be odd...) HaloTalk 20:57, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - UOTM is a nice little way to "reward" users. It's not a big, important thing. I see what you mean about consensus, but I feel like that shouldn't apply here. It's just a fun contest. ʞooɔ 07:05, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Opposes are mean.08:39, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Oppose votes will easily result in contention. If we allow them, the UOTM will ultimately do more damage to the wiki than good. The process works fine as is.22:18, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I know it breaks a major policy but it is the best way for this particular thing, if this passes can we add an exception in RS:CONSENSUS for UOTM. 07:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC)