Forum:UOTM Criteria

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > UOTM Criteria
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 November 2012 by Spineweilder.

After the UOTM nominations for November, there have been suspects of trolling the UOTM by several people, which compelled me to reconsider the criteria for a UOTM. Currently, the criteria for a UOTM is as follows:

*You should notify the user you have nominated them. They may not want to be nominated so it's good to let them know.
  • Don't nominate anyone who has already been a user of the month.
  • Nomination starts the month prior to the designated featured user month (e.g. for March, nomination is in February). A user of the month is determined on the first day of the month.
  • Oppose votes are not acceptable. Please simply do not vote if you don't think that a candidate deserves to be user of the month.
  • Voters are required to have a minimum of 50 edits which exclude edits from userpages, user talkpages, and the Sandbox - per this discussion.
  • Candidates may not self-promote their own nominations, be it in their signatures, talk page, userbox, etc.
  • Candidates may not vote for their own nomination.
  • Users may vote for as many candidates as they wish but may only vote once per person. Votes may also be changed/modified before the end of the month.
  • Absolutely no in-game advertising about UotM by candidates, be it in PM, Clan Chat, etc. If this occurs, screenshots of chat may be used to provide grounds to disqualify the candidate.
— Current UOTM Criteria

I believe there used to be a criteria stating "Candidates need to be active throughout the whole month of their nomination." I am finding difficulty in finding when it was removed and why - perhaps it was removed because it didn't define active, or it was just ridiculous. It would be nice to know who proposed the removal and when.

I'm proposing that we put this criteria back by rephrasing it or defining it thoroughly, and perhaps add several more criteria suggested by some users:

1. Candidates need to have a certain amount of activity in the past month before/during the nomination. What I'm currently thinking of the definition of "activity" in this case would be having a healthy amount of non user-space/sandbox contributions in the during/past month.

2. Users who wish to nominate a candidate should decide to do so maybe two weeks after the start of the month, or when half the month is over. This idea was particularly compelled by several nominations in the past several months that were one or two days before the month is up.

3. Candidates can only be nominated by an administrator. Now this I'm not too particularly keen about because of many active users that aren't admins, but I'm just going to propose it here anyways.

Discussion

Support 1 and 2 - I think by adding those two criteria, would prevent last minute nominations supposedly to troll or just hoping to squeeze in a tie, and be able to nominate those who are active in contributing to the wiki and truly deserve a UOTM nomination. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 02:44, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose all - I am finding this ridiculous. After all, we are just a wiki about a game, so I don't know why we have to be so serious about everything. July's UOTM for example, yes I would agree that was definitely a "speedy" last minute thing to do, but regardless the user earned it (her contributions are helpful either way). Also I'd like you to notice Casting Fishes^^ in the most recent UOTM, does a user have to make thousands edits just to earn the "prestigious" reward of UOTM? No. I personally believe if a user has affected the wiki in a positive way, they should be given the label "User of the Month", rather than looking at contributions solely. Though I do agree that common sense should be used for the candidate's activity level (rather than nominating a random IP address), applying a limit of edits for defining activity is crazy. Hair 03:33, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

I did not state a limit of edits for defining activity. There is no definite number of edits to define a user's activity; a user fifty edits and while that seems little it could be the type of edit that benefits the article on a larger scale, or a user with 1,000+ edits that are mostly minor edits that most people don't bother to check but still benefits the article albeit on a smaller scale. I would prefer everyone who would be involved in this discussion define "activity" before taking a look at these suggestions. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 04:28, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, as it seems you'd like to have activity defined, which I think I didn't elabore enough on in my first statement, I will surely define it for you. If a user/player takes part in some type of activity that relates to the wiki, possibly IRC, special:chat, Clan chat, skype, etc..., wouldn't you consider that active in some type of wiki related activity. Problem being, which might be asked, why does this matter? Why say someone who is great to be around/encourages/engages with other users is allowed to be given the title "User of the Month"? Simply.. because they helped. I don't see any wrong with allowing a user who is actively engaged in the wiki's clan chat be given the title "User of the Month", as they are apart of something the wiki is involved in/promotes (though it doesn't seem like it entirely). If you haven't noticed yet, I'm trying to steer away from edits, edit counts, high quality edits or other nonsense that just promotes "editcountitis". Though I do think having edits is always a great quality in a user, being apart of the community can be greater than the amount of times you have clicked the save button. My looks on this still stands after you asking me to take a look on what is activity, that this type of activity described should be used to base a user rather than "having a healthy amount of non user-space/sandbox contributions in the during/past month" only. Hair 04:00, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose hard limits - For the record, Dtm142 added a rule in August 2007 saying that the user of the month couldn't go inactive during the voting month. Degenret changed it to make the user be active throughout the entire month, and then Lil cloud 9 removed it altogether, without any discussion I am aware of.

Personal view - UOTM has been getting a bit weird lately. Practical jokes are okay so long as the candidates are deserving and not just part of a popularity contest. I wouldn't mind reinstating the rule that "Candidates need to be active throughout the whole month of their nomination.", although it should be up to the voters to interpret what that means, not some static decision made by us here. Remember that this doesn't really matter. ʞooɔ 04:08, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

I've checked Lil cloud's talk page and I did not see any discussion concerning the removal of the criteria. If this was really removed without any discussion, shouldn't it be reinstated? -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 04:28, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't this added without discussion in the first place? And aren't we discussing to add this back right now? No need to speed this up, I think we should just wait for the outcome of this thread. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:32, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - #1 seems redundant. To be nominated, wouldn't you have to have been spotted by an admin, and by extension, have been active? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I doubt many people are getting nominated on a whim. Sure, Casting Fishes^^ may not have had many edits in the past month (For the record, there was only 1), but how often does this really happen? Judging by this year's UOTMs, this doesn't seem like a big problem.

- #2 I can get behind. I mean, yeah, waiting for the last few days is a little ridiculous, but instead of waiting two weeks into the month, how about just make it so that no new nominations can be accepted in the last week?

- #3 I'm not supporting, for the same reasons you're not keen about it.

Gotta agree with Cook that "Candidates need to be active throughout the whole month of their nomination." is a good idea, whether it be activity in chat, edits, or both. Blaze_fire.png12.png 04:15, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 and 2 - This will prevent users from nominating someone on the last day and somehow winning UOTM. Also, there is nothing wrong with users strategically posting and withdrawing votes in order to attempt to achieve a tie. UOTM isn't something serious like the RfXs, its a fun way to acknowledge users who do stuff. I like ties, 222 talk 08:53, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

In the case of star, it actually allowed someone who deserved UotM to get it. If Liquid hadn't've forgotten, he would've withdrew and there would've been no UotM. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 16:38, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Kind of support 1 and 2 - UCS for the activity requirement of #1. If the user has two edits in the month (as seen in the last UOTM), they obviously have not contributed enough to be titled user of the month. For #2, I think it'd be easier to just say that users may not be nominated after a certain amount of time, like 20 days after the new month starts. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:47, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1, neutral 2, and oppose 3 - It wouldn't make much sense to label an editor the "User of the Month" if they were inactive for that month, thus I think it would be a good idea to implement No. 1. As for the third suggestion, it's simply not necessary. I think editors without admin rights can also be trusted to make nominations for the most part. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:54, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, admins are the ones doing the last minute nominations. I say we support number 3 in reverse. MolMan 19:56, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
no. --Iiii I I I 19:59, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
fetus said it best. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:16, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Just in case I'd like to restate what Cook said about Lil cloud 9 removing the criteria "Candidates need to be active throughout the whole month of their nomination." Since there was no known discussion (I asked Dtm personally since he was the one who created it, and he was unaware of any discussion), I'm thinking we should include reinstating this in our discussion. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 17:35, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

What Smithing said - For the record, point two means 'Users must be nominated between the 1st and 15th of the month', right? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 19:35, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts - I honestly think that as a community, we've gotten to the point where we've simply outgrown UOTM. It worked well three years ago, I think it's been going on for so long that it's no longer sustainable. I don't see the trolling in last month's UOTM, and I'd like to point people towards AGF, but you know, there was that one time, and I think this is a good time to discuss the state of UOTM.

I think we should ask ourselves why people are trolling it, and I think the problem lies in the fact that it's a monthly thing.

  • It gets wiped every month, which means that less-serious nominations ultimately don't matter.
  • Somebody can and will get it every month. I think that this more or less forces nominations, and allows for less-serious votes to actually work. As many people have said before, if you hang around long enough, you will get UOTM, and I honestly think that we're seeing this now more than ever. Why are we forcing it? Why are we putting it on a set time limit?
  • I think the real problem is the consensus side of things. Unlike every single other consensus system we have, where nominations are completely independent of each other (or should be), UOTM candidates are... put up against each other? The only thing that matters is who gets the most votes; the votes everybody else got don't count, and they aren't credited in any way. It would be like with RS:RFD if every month we only deleted the page that had the most votes, and everything else was just left to stay. Maybe that's bit of a broad analogy, but you get my point. It just seems nonsensical.
  • The only way we can put people up against each other fairly is by using a voting system, like we do now. These are really a remnant of the past, and the only place we still use such a system is UOTM.

What I'm trying to say is that I think that if UOTM was proposed today, it wouldn't pass. Maybe other people don't feel so negatively towards UOTM that I do, but I just think it's reached the end of it's lifespan.

I would much prefer a RuneScape:Featured users style page, where there would be no time limit and the nominations would be completely independent of each other. I think people don't take it seriously because it is forced and on a time limit. If we removed these factors and made it consensus based like, for example, RFA, there would simply be less incentive to nominate people, because there is less of a chance they will get it. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, but I think in this case it's a good thing, and it would more or less filter out less serious nominations. We did it with RS:FA; why not do it with this?

But if we don't get rid of UOTM, I'll comment on this proposal itself.

  1. I can see why people think that candidates having to be active in the past month or during it or whatever is a good thing, but why should they have to be? Do the things they've done in the past suddenly not matter? I'm not saying we shouldn't have no limit on it; I'm thinking something like 3 months minimum. Also, I have a problem with that definition of activity, mainly for the same reason, but also because it suggests that the only way to become a featured user (which is what I'll refer to it as for now on) is to edit, and I personally don't agree with that.
  2. I actually don't really have any problems with locking nominations to the first half of the month. Take this as a weak support for that.
  3. No, no, no. Absolutely not. I think that is a tremendously extreme measure to combat a problem that is honestly quite minor, bordering on non-existance right now.

Make of that what you will. Matt (t) 21:39, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1, oppose 2/3 - 1 is logic, you need to have some kind of activity. 2 , I don't like that idea, we should be allowed to nominate anyone anytime. 3. I really don't like that, maybe a # of edit count to add them would be good, but not only admins. — Jr Mime (talk) 21:44, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Meh 1, support 2, oppose 3 - With 1, I think we should allow people who are active in Chat to be allowed for UotM. They are users and should suffer no disadvantage to people who do edit. I support 2 as this is can be just unfair for people, such as, yes, liquidhel(iu)m. Oppose 3 as this won't do anything. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 05:58, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

What's Chat got to do with this? 222 talk 06:51, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that being Chat should be counted as being active, instead of just editing. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 08:25, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
How about IRC, Clan Chat, posting on wiki Facebook or using #rswiki as a hashtag on Twitter? 222 talk 09:23, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
Because the Chat is actually associated with the Wiki and requires you to be a user to access Chat. The clan is just something we made up, same with IRC, Facebook, and Twitter, where you do not have to be a Wiki User. Also IRC is nub. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 09:30, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
I would disagree here. Special:Chat, as with the IRC, skype, teamspeak and Clan Chat (and probably to an extent twitter) are media to socialise with other users who have an interest in the wiki. They can be used to talk about events on the wiki, to discuss a forum thread or incident, but I do not think they qualify as actively participating on the wiki. Chances are most conversations across any of these is largely unrelated to the wiki. To include activity in s:c but not IRC is confusing to say the least and many of the users of both chats are inactive on the wiki. cqm 16:17, 4 Nov 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
I epically strong oppose allowing social media to equal being active. How can you be a user of the month if you do nothing but talk?? UOTM is not supposed to be a stupid vanity thing, it's to acknowledge those who have been working hard recently on the wiki. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:27, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that Chat is in a different category to IRC etc. More or less what Haidro said, Chat is the only service we have of that kind that is directly linked to the wiki -- you need to be logged in on the wiki to use it, it's on the same domain as the wiki, and Chat is the only one of these services that can actually have a real objective effect on the wiki (banning people, making them chatmods). I think that might as well just accept Chat as another facet of the chat. That said, you shouldn't necessarily be allowed to become UOTM just because you're an awesome chatmod or you talk alot, but I don't see why these couldn't be contributing factors to somebody's activity. I think including skype and twitter and things is pushing it, and are really too minor in the grand scheme of things to base a nomination off, but I see no reason why these things can't be contributing factors, but to a lesser scale. Also, I thought we killed TeamSpeak. :O Matt (t) 19:53, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
From what I've observed In the IRC I believe there is a teamspeak server online, although I may be mistaken. Going back to the chat/irc issue though, to me chat is just wikia's way of emulating IRC. Notice ##wikia is an unofficial channel with little to no staff interaction these days. Help:IRC has been deleted. Wikia, excluding Sannse who provides us with Wikia cloaks and Rappy 4187 who remains in ##wikia likely due to habit and operating his bot, has essentially moved on to it's own form of chat.
We can debate the success of this move all day, but the fact is many of the features in Special:Chat are also found in IRC. Topic, 'ops', kick/bans; the list goes on. Chat bans, RfCMs, etc are only 'wiki business' because wikia decided they wanted their own form of chat and it makes more sense to have these discussions on the wiki. Not forgetting some have trouble staying connected to chat and find it easier to chat in the IRC instead. cqm 21:59, 4 Nov 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
If you're worthy of being UOTM, you will have been active on the wiki anyway, making activity in the chatroom useless. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:41, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - We should have axed this in 2009 when Degen tried to do it. I tried to ax the voting system in 2010 but that got nowhere.

Though hindsight notwithstanding, I'd more or less be in favor of the points Matthew mentioned in his very long post above. --LiquidTalk 03:30, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Revision

Revised proposals - I've revised the proposal after reading the above discussions. The first one is a rewrite of the criteria created by Dtm, revised by Degenret, and removed by Lil cloud 9 without proper discussion, so I thought it should be put back because of that.

  • The nominated user should have a healthy amount of contributions in the past month before a nomination. Exceptions can be made if the user has shown a significant history of prolific contributions.
  • You should notify the user you have nominated them. They may not want to be nominated so it's good to let them know.
  • Don't nominate anyone who has already been a user of the month.
  • Nomination starts the month prior to the designated featured user month (e.g. for March, nomination is in February). A user of the month is determined on the first day of the month.
  • Users who wish to nominate a user should decide to do so within two weeks of the beginning of the nomination period.
  • Oppose votes are not acceptable. Please simply do not vote if you don't think that a candidate deserves to be user of the month.
  • Voters are required to have a minimum of 50 edits which exclude edits from userpages, user talkpages, and the Sandbox - per this discussion.
  • Candidates may not self-promote their own nominations, be it in their signatures, talk page, userbox, etc.
  • Candidates may not vote for their own nomination.
  • Users may vote for as many candidates as they wish but may only vote once per person. Votes may also be changed/modified before the end of the month.
  • Absolutely no in-game advertising about UotM by candidates, be it in PM, Clan Chat, etc. If this occurs, screenshots of chat may be used to provide grounds to disqualify the candidate.
— Revised UOTM Criteria Proposal

-- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 03:09, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Looks fine to me. cqm 15:44, 8 Nov 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Support - Shouldn't end as badly as before, a smoldering hole in the dirt Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 23:23, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Looks way better, way more organised. I like this idea. — Jr Mime (talk) 02:18, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Looks fine to me! Blaze_fire.png12.png 11:52, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Nice and detailed criteria Explore and enjoy the world! TIMMMO Work it with all my heart!++Discuss Sign 17:28, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks good 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 17:37, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Yay. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:38, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Looks good What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:20, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

Close - The proposed changes will be implemented onto the UOTM Criteria. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 02:42, November 14, 2012 (UTC)