Forum:Abolish user of the month

Forums: Yew Grove > Abolish user of the month

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 21 February 2009 by Bonziiznob.

I am sure many people are aware of some of the silliness that occured during january. For those that arent allow me to mention a little of it.

• People were PMed in game and asked to vote
• It was discussed on the RS Wiki chat
• Some of the votes seemed as much to be about one user not getting rather than one getting it.

All of this leads to my main point. There was too much focus and attention on this rather than where it should have been. I am not saying "omg this is all anyone cared about" because a lot of good stuff got made and fixed in January. But even more could have been if there was no attention on User of the Month. It was a popularity contest for at least some of the participants. And thats just wrong. Not all, just some.

It has been suggested before that this should happen, and I really hope the community sees this as a distraction we can do without. We can and should replace it with a section for Articles that need help. This has been proposed and supported before but has always seemed to fade away. Well this would be a great time to put that up on the front page. An article in need of lots of work would then get more notice, and would stay listed until its as good as any article of the month. Some would only take a few days, others (Summoning?) would probably take a while. But its a much better community focus that we could all take pride in.

--Degenret01 02:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In Addition - As a top candidate is last months UotM, I must say that all the above is true. It's sad when users are looking for recognition, and that is entirely not the point of this wikia. Now, let me justify my spot in this so that is does not come back to bite be in the rear later:

• I did myself speak about the UotM in the Clan Chat - I did not however solicit vote in any which way.
• As other users began to promote the UotM in their signature, I did aswell as I felt this was an unfare advantage...I later that day removed the link as it conflicted with my beliefs, a user should not self promote their own UotM

To continue, I must admit that the user of the month is becoming more of a popularity contest. The point of the user of the month was to recognize the great contributions a user has made, and to say thank you from the community, but as time has progressed the meaning has change. Lets talk about this with a bit of reference:

• Between a discussion with myself and other user here and here, we speak about users being solicited in game. This is an absolute disgust. Why are people asking for votes, it's arrogant and selfish.

• As many might know, me and Degenret were hoping for a tie. When my nominee left and I voted for Degenret it gave him the upper hand at one point, offering him the lead over my nomination. This here is a suggestion I received. Why on earth would I want to pull my vote to simply win? How is that fair to the editor or anyone else that is voting? Again, selfish...

• Cheating? - I'm not sure if this is true, but even if it is, who cares...It's not the point to gain recognition so if people need to cheat to win it's quite sad...and when it is getting to the point users thinks others are cheating it's time to stop.

• It got to the point I was not even allowed to scratch unqualified voters without being ridiculed. Please note that since this discussion occurred we has resolved any misunderstandings. The point I am trying to point out with this and this just proves that the trust in users to simply recognize great users is gone. This trust needs to be built up again.

• Users nominating themselves???

• Users began to promote their own UotM in their signatures (see above in my admissions... :( )

• If you would kindly scroll down on this page, to Degenret's section, you will also find a vote cast based on the influence of another user, not directly linked to anything about the User of the Month, or the user being voted for. The vote was simply cast as a revenge vote for something that was said to this user. THIS IS CRAZY! Since when do people vote because of something other then the great work and contributions of the user being nominated?

This is just to point out a few things I have experienced over the last month as being a candidate. Please note, that I do not support retiring this as it is a very affective means to recognize great contributors, I am simply saying that it needs to be thought over. This is a privileged, not a right.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Support - As per above

Bonziiznob ^Talk

03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I uber support abolishing UOTM.

InstantWinston^{old edits | new edits}

03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Changed to Oppose - While I do support some of the things you said in the description, I still like having the UotM on the mainpage. It brings up morale and is a way of thanking users who have done a great job here on the wiki. I really don't think the featured user section would make other users feel demoted. Everyone is saying that "We need to focus more on the articles" when really, we already are doing that. The UotM isn't in anyway interfering with us making and bettering articles. This is what I am proposing. Is there anyway we could just add a new section to the mainpage concerning articles in need of help? That way we can have both the featured user section and the articles that need help section and there wouldn't be any problems. -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is to remove the UotM, not to substitute it. It would be cool to have something like that, but the point is people are getting to wrapped up in being recognized that they are asking for it, etc... UotM is not what it used to be, it's a popularity contest anymore.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well how bout instead of getting rid of it completely, could we just do a major overhaul of all the rules and how it should work to avoid all of the "drama" and complaints and problems with it (like Andorin said)? -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 06:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - although you have very good points, a very small amount of users were affected by the "UOTM drama". In fact, I barely heard about UOTM both in the clan chat and on the wiki. Also, please don't take any offense to this, Degenret, but I do find it rather odd that you suggested this within an hour or so of becoming User of the Month. Andrew ^talk 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If I "hadn't won" then it may have looked like me being a sore loser. Too many people do too much work for one person to get recognized.--Degenret01 03:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but you could have started this before voting had ended. Besides, that isn't why I'm opposing and didn't influence my opinion either. I have never heard of any problems with UOTM before January, so could it be that it is not the UOTM competition itself but certain nominees that caused the controversy? (not accusing anyone) If this is the case, which I believe it is, then I see no reason that UOTM cannot continue as it has since March 2007. Andrew ^talk 03:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that now that you "have won" it is safe to try to abolish it, since you can already claim you got it. And I can't say I find that impossible to believe either.. Christine 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to be mentioning it on my user page or putting up a little user box about it, and if we can get the other project going then my name will be off the front page within a day and a real wikia project going.. Way to assume good faith. Also, I discussed it with Bonzii on his talk page a few days ago. --Degenret01 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not right to put the spotlight on a single user. If UOTM is meant to give newbies someone to look up to, then they should check out the history for the featured article and find out who wrote the bulk of it.

InstantWinston^{old edits | new edits}

03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - I have to agree that the original intention of this feature has been lost over time. I did not understand that fully in times past, however what i have seen it become is not healthy for encouraging new editors to join in this project. I would very much like to see this feature replaced with a Collaboration article, where new editors are invited to make something better. In regards to uotm, at the very least it should be removed from the main page. Any thing that goes on regarding uotm should likely be restricted to the User: space or at least outside of the main namespace, if people insist on maintaining this wiki-debilitating feature. This wiki is not about vanity or getting your name exposed to the masses, it is about documenting a game most of us enjoy. As such i would like to see this feature no longer present on the main page. User:Kytti khat/sig 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Conditional oppose. If there are problems with UotM, I don't think just tossing it out the door is the way to go when approaching those problems. Establish stricter standards. Examples:

• No self-nominations. You can vote for yourself, but you cannot nominate yourself.
• Do not solicit your, or anyone else's, nomination anywhere on the wiki. Anyone caught soliciting any nomination will be disqualified and, if the situation warrants it, given a block.
• Only a certain number of nominations per month. This would help control possible controversy.

Technically, the RS wiki is independent of the game itself and therefore the wiki can't interfere with in-game actions. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, the in-game chat channel for the wiki IS under the control of the admins of the wiki, as the admins tend to have rank there. As such, another standard should be to abolish discussion of UotM on either IRC or in the chat channel. As a matter of fact, perhaps banning UotM discussions from anywhere but the UotM page would be the way to go. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I appreciate your input. In opinion, I feel this would greatly impact the method of how the UotM is handled and viewed, and should be implemented in the future if the UotM is to return, but for now I feel the focus and concept of the UotM is gone and it needs to be re-established and it's purpose thought about in mind, not in policy. Removing this will allow users to appreciate that it is a privilege, not a right, and besides the point of the wikia is for the content, not the users. Let's focus more on the articles and the impact they have on the community as a whole rather then looking at the contributions of one.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless what additional rules and limitations are put on it, the mere fact that it denotes notoriety will be enough for many to find ways to needle around those rules in attempt at being noticed. Ever wonder how many sock puppets there are on any given wiki, or can be used outside of a wiki? If you're going to insist on keeping it, then you could at least support something more comprehensive in fixing the issue that has grown from this. By taking the feature off the main page the level of notoriety can be lessened and at least in that measure it would not be a major distraction from what this wiki's goals are, wouldn't you agree? User:Kytti khat/sig 05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said, and I do agree that if it is not abolished it should be removed from the main page in the least.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

05:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Very good points, and there is no really reason it needs to exist. The Wikia can continue it's way on without it. Jediadam4 ^(Talk) 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - We've had this discussion before. I never saw a good reason for deleting it. So, to fix some of the problems you stated, how about we make it so every user has to make a description on why they voted for the person (similar to RfAs). Then we wouldn't count the votes with bad descriptions, like for reasons you said. Yes this wiki can continue it's way on without it, but does keeping it really make it worse? User:C Teng/sig 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - This is ridiculous. Two isolated incidents does not warrant instant abolition. That is complete insanity. I agree with Andorin on the restrictions, such as no self-nominations and no soliciting, and breaking said rules should result in a 1 day block, more for repeat infractions. Like a few above me said, it gives new users a person to look up to, and a general role model for the wiki. In short, I oppose this motion, and anyone who self-nominates of solicits votes should be reprimanded accordingly. Kevin-020 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Total Support - as per previous supports, notably kytti khat's "This wiki is not about vanity or getting your name exposed to the masses, it is about documenting a game most of us enjoy". Also: 1. We have more than one contributor per month who would deserve that. Giving this "reward" to only one (obviously quite random) of them is simply unfair - and giving it to two is getting ridiculous (I guess the next steps are to give it to 3, then to more?). 2. Voting in this is a waste of a time which could be used to contribute to articles instead. 3. Having the oppose vote prohibited is just ridiculous: a vote where you can't say no? Are we in China? 4. Some editor(s) leave because the lameness of this feature makes them sick. At least that's what made me stop after my previous return, and that's what makes me bounce today too, after a few other edits I need for my closure. 5. Finally, this page is simply breaking RuneScape:All editors are equal. Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support UOTM is pointless. TEbuddy 07:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - While I agree that there was some silliness regarding the Uotm in January, I do not think that Uotm should be abolished because it is about thanking an active user for his/her contributions to the wiki. The person deserves mention and without the Uotm, there would be no way to do just that. I agree with C Teng's ideas on how to prevent such things from happening. To sum it up, a policy should be made to counter the problems instead of abolishing the Uotm. C.Chiam^Talk 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean a policy as clever as the one saying you can't vote no? Since I almost already earned my Godwin point, I won't insist on the China comparison nor germanize it, but as Tacitus used to say, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws". Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

more commentary -- One thing I've already noticed in the past six months was the size of the so-called feature again outgrowing the size of the Article of the Month. This is just another indicator of the amount of vanity that goes into this feature, I was one to advocate taking it down a notch before and this is not an uncommon occurrence, this is a regular and ongoing happening. Regardless of how many rules are put on this "feature" it will continue to attract undue and needless attention, as it is already doing in this discussion thread, which in itself continues to move this Wiki away from it's reason for being. If we're only going to add more rules to this then first and foremost should be to move it off of the front page. User:Kytti khat/sig 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY) January was just an uncommon occurance. That has happened, like, three times in the 20+ months that the UotM has been around. Though, there are things that could use changing.

• Voting for yourself. Seriously? That's pointless.
• Nominating yourself. If you're such a good user, someone else will do the nominating for you.
• Lengthy descriptions on the main page. A link to the userpage and a description is just assinine. If you want to know about the user, just click on the link to their userpage. Something like "Congratulations to Iamzezima9991234987 for being this month's User of the Month!" would work just as fine and use less space.
• Hype. The whole UotM process is treated like it's an honor. All you do is you get your name on a list and glory on the main page.

Killing something off because one month in particular was bad isn't the best way to do something. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you Opposing this or not? -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What does it look like? "Killing something off because one month in particular was bad isn't the best way to do something.". So yes, I am against abolishing it so quickly without trying to fix it first. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: UOTM isn't really pointless, but it makes it look like, eg February, Degenret01 is the only user that deserves to be featured. But there are many more users that can be recognized (Bonzi). Like Degenret said, we could better replace it with Articles that need help, or a weekly Poll or something.-- Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!} . 11:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose What is the point of the User of the Month? It's not to say "this user is the best", "everyone should try to get their name on this list", or anything like that. The User of the Month is meant to give one special user each month recognition. That's it. And I find it darn sad that we can find something wrong with a system that only allows compliments.

We're here to work together as a team. We spend our time documenting a game all (or most of) us love. We don't get paid, and we don't become famous. We're volunteers. But, once in a while, it's important to point out that someone has made a special impact on our community. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in reverting vandalism and guiding users that we for get to point out when somebody does something right.

The point of the User of the Month is not to select one particular user as being the best. It's just a way for the community to point to someone and say, "Hey, thanks, you've really made a difference!" Yes, the User of the Month is most often just a thank you to a single contributor. But if it was given to more people, it wouldn't be as special.

Yes, I spend time thinking about who to vote for, and that time could be spent contributing to an article or reverting vandalism. But when I make that final edit—when I voice my support and say how someone really made a difference in my experience here, it feels like I am shaking someone's hand while wearing a huge smile and saying, "you're a special person". It's my way (and others') of saying thank you.

Nobody should feel left out. Nobody loses. Even if you think someone else is more deserving of recognition, remember the difference that the winner made. That contributor deserves a "hug" just as much as anyone else. Next month, maybe the person you voted for will get the most votes—but does it really matter? Just the fact that we take the time in our busy lives to simply say "thank you" is something to be proud of in and of itself.

To be honest, I don't care if people go around advertising their User of the Month nominations. Why? Because that's like walking up to someone and saying, "hey, you, say thank you to me NOW!" We all know that, and so we won't vote for such a nominee. Does someone who demands our thanks really deserve it? No.

There are flaws in every recognition system. There are always going to be people who feel left out or that they have been treated unfairly. But such people aren't grasping the true meaning of the User of the Month. Even if they had one, they wouldn't have felt it in the same way that the real winner might have. It's not a trophy, a badge, or a rank. It's a thank you card.

User of the Month is one of the few reminders on this wiki that it's important to thank our contributors for the differences they make. It forces us to take a step back from the reverting, banning, and nit-picking, giving us a chance to see all of the good in our community.

I look forward to giving my virtual handshake this month and for many months to come, both to nominees and winners. I'm not looking to get nominated myself; I would miss the opportunity I have to thank yet another hard-working volunteer. And, hopefully, the rest of our community also feels the same satisfaction each month, regardless of whom is voted the User of the Month.

1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Degenret01, put the fact that you were chosen as a User of the Month on your user page. You deserve it; you have put a lot of time and effort into this wiki. Think of it as my thank you—the community's thank you. We appreciate every single edit you make, and this community wouldn't be the same without you. That's what we were saying when we chose you.

1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 22:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Now EVERYONE pay attention! This guy understands the true meaning of the User of the Month. He is exactly right. It's not about the recognition okay, it's about the thank you. It about commemorating the well efforts of another editor, someone who has dedicated their time to aiding this wikia and helping it to achieve it's full potential. If we could all understand this, the User of the Month would mean so much more, to everyone. Yield what Supertech has just said, because it is the true understanding and point. Please note: If we can work to make this UotM about not receiving recognition based on fame or popularity, or asking for votes, advertising yourself, etc, and actually about the recognition of a user`s contribution, then I hope this feature stays. It would be nice to create something however in addition to this to focus more on articles (as has been recently mentioned), but if we can understand the true purpose then their would be no reason to remove it.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Back in the old days.... UotM was always about a thank you, not a popularity contest. Editors should be chosen for their time, effort, and dedication. There are similar characteristics that should be looked at during RFA's (which we have all witnessed people thanking others for support votes and asking about opposes). My vote was totally influenced against people who advertise for it in both instances‎Atlandy 12:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Biggest oppose that anyone can oppose too. - Taking away UOTM is like taking away all the articles on the wiki. It's an essential part. It's a gift. A gift that let's the user who won, know that they have a done a good job. It's very important to the wiki. --

COLO

>

02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New Proposal

With permission from Degenret01, we have decided to close this proposal and re-open a new one which would fundamentally change some rules to the User of the Month. Please comment your support or oppose to this new policy addition.

New Rules to Add to the UotM:

• 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
• 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.
• All votes must be directly related to the Candidate and their contributions. Voters must explain their vote.

Proposed Changes to the Set-up:

• User of the Month template will only state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month"

or

• User of the Month template will be removed from the mainpage. User of the Month will be displayed as a site notice and will state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month"

or

• User of the Month template removed from mainpage. User of the Month will not be displayed on site notice. User of the Month will be moved to a separate page.

Please discuss these possible changes now. Move to abolish the UotM has been withdrawn. Please keep this open until 1 week prior to March UotM. Any changes will occur beginning of March.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

07:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I support these new rules, and move for Option 2: User of the Month template will be removed from the mainpage. User of the Month will be displayed as a site notice and will state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month"

Bonziiznob ^Talk

07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

100% Support - I have heard enough fighting, heated debates, and "no, me!"s in the CC to decide on this issue. Jediadam4 ^(Talk) 08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support as long as we keep UotM. I think we should have a link on the Main Page saying "Congratulations Example," and link it to the separate page you suggested, giving a longer congratulations, like what we have now. User:C Teng/sig 12:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - per C Teng

1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - If a user fails to abide by rules, then user's vote should be disqualified.  Eternalseed   20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm glad the UotM is still on the mainpage. I would like the first option stating we keep the template and we just state "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month". Scratch that... I would want the option explained by C Teng. -- Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Very Strong Support - per C Teng. Link to a separate page with a longer description. Andrew ^talk 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support all except the last proposed change. The purpose of User of the Month should be to highlight users' contributions so that other editors can see some of the best our wiki has to offer. Simply saying "User X won" on the main page or sitenotice would defeat this purpose and reduce UOTM to a simple popularity contest, which seems to be what we are trying to avoid. Getting rid of the feature completely would be a much better option than turning it into a popularity contest. Dtm142 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose UTOM, support changes to current rules Get rid of UOTM, all it does is cause problems and take up space on the main page. TEbuddy 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete and total support Ah. Finally an end to that conflict. Kevin-020 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that this feature will be kept, but I accept that this is what the community wants. One additional rule that would have stopped some of the nonsense should be "Voters must have 50 Mainspace edits". Really, 50 is not a hard number to achieve. It really isn't.--Degenret01 04:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Degenret, the old rules aren't being abolished, such as the 50-edit to vote rule. These are just additional rules. Andrew ^talk 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like the rule for voting to be 50 mainspace edits instead of 50 edits not including talk pages. User:C Teng/sig 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think this should be implemented immediately. No reason not to, there is plenty of time left in the month for all voters to get their contrib count up.--Degenret01 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding explained votes, I would like anyone in favor of that feature to think about this for a minute. Ok, 20 seconds then. The nominator is already going to list positive attributes of the nominee, or they wouldn't be a nominee. Many/most of that persons supporters are most likely going to agree with those reasons. So really just a "support" and your sig should be sufficient. Or are you suggesting that we judge the reasons behind a vote? That could get so ugly so fast. Keep it simple. --Degenret01 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be like an election if we did it that way, which is completly unbiased. In personal opinion, if it is constructive support about the well contributions of another user however, I think it would be very rewarding to hear from another about what they have done good that deserves this vote.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

17:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you going to "judge" their votes? What if you don't feel their opinion is good enough? DQ the vote? This is extremely unreasonable--Degenret01 07:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I Support the rule changes but I am Neutral about set-up changes. I find UOTM advertisements everywhere and I think it is something your earn, not campaign for. I find that even mentioning how a person is, sadly causes an entire "war". The changes to set-up to me make it seem to not give them the congratulations they deserve, but I see the changes as taking away the reason to go out and campaign instead of getting out there and doing what is right and earning it. I think the point of User of The Month is to showcase a wikian's contributions and to give them a pat on the back for their great work and our current system does not reflect it. - TehKittyCat (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional Possible Rule:

• 50 Mainspace edits replaces 50 Edits not including talk pages
• Only 1 vote per voter per month

Anyone oppose?

Bonziiznob ^Talk

17:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainspace edits as a rule can be troublesome, as it is only shows the number of edits a person has made. A user can easily make 50 minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) in a short span of time. Why don't we increase of amount of edits, so that only active users will be able to vote? Maybe 100 or 200 edits?

Anohter suggestion is to convert "User of the Month" to "List of Notable users" and just list the users who have contributed significantly to the wiki. (What is significant? I really don't know.) But, at least, this will eliminate the need to select brand a new UotM every single month. Personally, I'd prefer to see this feature removed...   az ^talk   21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I Fully Support and Comment, I am tired of seeing people vote multiple times and having a main space requirement will be good for having informed voters. I personally, like 75 or 125 edits as the requirement for the number of edits. I think the point of User of The Month is to showcase a wikian's contributions and to give them a pat on the back for their great work. - TehKittyCat (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 1 vote per voter So the vote wont affect who wins, but it does let people know that the voter recognizes the work that they have done. As a feel good gesture. Lets not have rules rules for the sake of having rules, just make ones we need to keep it fair and from getting crazy.--Degenret01 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for UOTM Changes

Remove self-nom. If it's about a user getting thanked, the user themselves shouldn't be asking for thanks. That's rude.

If this means that we don't get a UOTM on some occasions, then so be it, clearly no-one put in the effort that deserves being thanked for.

King Runite1 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a rule against it.

InstantWinston^{old edits | new edits}

15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is already a rule. Thanks for you contribution though ;)

Bonziiznob ^Talk

19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion - The new rules and changes have been added to the User of the Month Criteria.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

15:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)