Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Please do not link to the nominee's user or talk page in the same edit as you add your signature!
Echo will inform them of their nomination and spoil the surprise. Also, please do not include the editor's name in the section heading because it will appear in watchlist notices.

Just type their name using plain text, or use {{noping}}, and we will replace it with {{User10}} in a way that does not notify the nominee.

This is the nominations talk page. To nominate someone for Editor of the Week, visit the Editor of the Week nominations page. This page hosts discussions about the nominated editor while a minimal vetting process takes place. Please review the Editor of the Week criteria and additional guidelines before commenting. Every attempt is made to vett and to move the nominations along ASAP, but it should be noted that the only stable queue is when the nomination has been moved to the accepted page.

Gerda

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations

True to her kind ways, Gerda has repeatedly declined nomination for this award, no matter how much we all think she deserves it!

I nominate Gerda Arendt to be Editor of the Week for two reasons. First of all, she is a dedicated content creator, particularly in the realm of classical music. I don't know whether she has kept an exact count of created articles and DYKs, but let's just say there's a lot of both. My second reason is that Gerda contributes a great deal of the kindness to the community through her ongoing efforts to encourage and recognize her fellow editors. Her long-term campaign of charity is detailed at Wikipedia:Precious. Thank you, Gerda! Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second BIG content creator. Very active and helpful at DYK. Pleasant teamwork-kind of player. Wiikipedia is a better and kinder place for her consistent and long standing work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nom. When this award was created Dennis approached me for helping, and I had my reasons not to (no merge with Precious, that is), and I said "give it to the unnoticed!" I am not one of them ;) - thanks for thinking of me, but please respect: give it to the unnoticed!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It seemed odd that you had never received this recognition before, so I sort of suspected you had declined it in the past. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually Gerda's third time to be nominated. Way back in the beginning she was nominated but, sadly for us, she politely declined. She was nominated again about two years ago but we clerks knew she would again decline and we informed the nominator (forgot who it was). She is most deserving but I will, of course, respect her wishes. As long as you guys are all here, I will take this opportunity, though, to mention that the queue for nominees is quite bare. I spend much of my time searching here and there for viable candidates. I would prefer to have a dozen in line but finding them on my own has proven to be a bit time burden. I've nominated about 60 over the years so my circle of editors available has decreased. Any help or ideas of where to "shake the trees" is appreciated.―Buster7 ☎ 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BIG YES from me, too! She's a pleasure to work with and has done great things for this encyclopedia. Her work at DYK (where I cross paths with her the most) is among the best I've seen. Hopefully she will accept our nomination so we can celebrate with her.

Cheers! MX (✉ • ✎) 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda is a great editor to work with and I whole heartedly support them being editor of the week, In all honestly never mind a week Gerda deserves Editor of the year! :), –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I join the chorus in support of this nomination. I will let Gerta chose hr favorite choral piece to add these voices to :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I missed that Gerta had posted above. I hope she knows how much we appreciate her work! MarnetteD|Talk 02:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Vami _IV✠ 15:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support A major content contributor, especially in music, where she excels. Also thoughtful and considerate of others, especially those who have been lost from the project. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here to nominate Gerda Arendt as well for all the amazing work she's putting in. Too bad it won't happen, but I thought I'd still leave a big thank you here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think the summary "refused" is correct. I just said frequently that many are less blessed with recognition than I am, and that stands. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support She is a great editor, and she should be EOTW! --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support she really does deserve it.--evrik ^(talk) 04:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buster7, Gerda has not "refused" anything. And even if they had, this is Wikipedia. Can we get off hte can and give them the award! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I have "bolded above" where Gerda has specifically requested that we respect her wishes not to be awarded. Far be it from me to go against her feminine desires. I do not wish to be besieged by Operatic Drama

. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Evrik. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 10:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd nomination within a year

RE:What was previously referred to as Nomination 3

This editor was the EotW less than a year ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Thanks for nominating someone, but he was EOTW already in April 2024. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that disqualify him? It's just "of the week", it isn't actually for a lifetime, even though he deserves that too! I understand wanting to spread the recognition around, but that shouldn't produce a kind of reverse discrimination. If he deserves it, he deserves it, and that shouold be the only requirement. And he does deserve it. He's amazingly wonderful. He may very well be a one of a kind and deserve it over and over again. Who knows? But I sure know he deserves it now. Please reconsider. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EOTW doesn't typically feature repeat winners, unless there's been a very long gap between the first and second time they've been awarded it. Gog the Mild and I actually both supported Airship's nomination last year, but I would be opposed to them (or anybody) receive the award again so quickly. Not because they aren't doing excellent work, but because the award is meant to be spread around. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I can see this will make no difference here, and I apologize for being stubborn about this, but this is not a good policy. The award should go to those who deserve it most. Period. I had no way of knowing he had won before, and I nominated him in good faith that he was deserving of recognition. That isn't changed by the fact he has deserved it repeatedly. Who among you can say they made the kind of effort to help another - over an extended period - without giving up that this editor has made? Is that really common enough to overlook? I can see that arguing for him will do no good, but I maintain that being disqualified because one is too good too regularly is decidedly backwards. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I don't think it's fair to say it'd make no difference to argue your point. But, to be honest, there's people I feel like I could nominate every couple months who wholeheartedly deserve it. I'm not sure that we want to fill the backlog with that though, which I think is what would end up happening. As for knowing whether someone has been nominated, no one is holding it against you if you didn't catch that someone had been before, but you can find previous winners by searching for their name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week. I speak with Airship sometimes and I absolutely love their contributions and everything that they do, they're absolutely fantastic as a person and an editor. This is nothing against them at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week was set up as an editor retention initiative to provide a friendly pat on the back, in the hope that it would encourage editors to continue with their good work. Originally it was specifically targeted for less celebrated editors. The long list of different editors recognized over twelve years has proven that there are many worthy editors, and thus it makes sense to spread the recognition experience broadly. Nonetheless, personalized thanks are always greatly appreciated. I encourage you to write a note to anyone whose work you think is deserving. It'll make their day and can prompt other talk page watchers to chime in! isaacl (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I'm fine with giving someone the award twice, but usually there should be at least a year or two between the two nominations. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777:}. There are currently 7 editors in the queue. Therefore, this nomination would be awarded in May; over a year since they were last awarded. Thanks so much for your nomination and strong support for a quality editor. When the time comes to award, I will list the editors in the discussion above as seconds.Buster7 ^Chat 22:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that. Feel free to write me down as a support. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YAY!! Thank you! A thousand blessings upon you!!

. This makes me so happy. There are no doubt many other deserving editors but no one deserves it more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the editor in question has become aware of the recent nomination and most likely this conversation. @AirshipJungleman29: has graciously declined the nomination with the following entry on the nomination page:

"""I do greatly appreciate this nomination, but I received this award less than a year ago, and with so many talented editors still to receive it (including yourself!) I'd rather others feel that they are valued"""

As I said previously, once I move the nomination to the Queue of accepted nominations, it will exceed the 12 month limitation. I think that will be the best resolution especially for the nominator. Are we in agreement? Buster7 ^Chat 14:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the nomination page:::"""So typical! But humility won't let you off the hook here! Buster7 worked out that, since there are currently 7 others already in the queue, it would be May before this could be awarded - and that is more than a year since your last one - so they will come back and take care of it then. Ah hah! I will be back to check too! I won't forget either, because you (Airship) and I will probably still be working on History of Christianity! Bless you! """ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Awarded April 2024

EDDY

oh my god, did you come up with calling them Eddy awards? that's absolutely brilliant. the Eddies... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:10, 9 April 2025(UTC)

Recipients of Editor of the Week aka The Eddy was suggested a long time ago! Flibirigit (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My given name is Eddy. Buster7 ^Chat 06:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing?

As someone who may nominate an editor soon, I assume that there isn't a problem with alerting editors of the nom who've given many compliments to the editor in the past, but I want to be absolutely sure of that here. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Email. I think you have discovered a diamond. Feel free to enter it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations where it will be available to receive "seconds" from those editors already watching the page on their watchlists. I would not alert other editors that may support your nomination via their talk pages. E-mailing them and suggesting they second at the above link will safeguard the surprise when the Award is handed out by me. Check out the queue of accepted nominations as examples. Thanks, Buster7 ^Chat 02:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supports and Discussion about Novems second time as EotW

Huge support, and a very well timed nom. Novem is doing great work to help solve what's unquestionably one of enWiki's biggest institutional problems (admin recruitment), and masterminding the recent elections was a tremendous feat in itself. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Novem already received the award in December 2023. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current guidelines are for no more than one nomination within 12 months, and therefore this would be within guidance -- I believe this changed relatively recently ~~and we've had a repeat award since then~~ (actually, I'm not sure about that last bit). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

one person that i can think of that received the award twice was theleekycauldron, in dec 2022 for DYK, and in may 2024 for reforming RfA. JuniperChill (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Gog the Mild has also been awarded twice, and Buster7 himself was nominated a second time, though he seems to be holding on to that one for later. So there is precedent for this — Novem is an editor I appreciate and highly respect, so I'm ~~neutral~~ on this nomination. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if i can get a second EOTWs because of RfA2024, novem should absolutely get one as well, imo. count me as a third :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what? Support. Novem deserves it, and "generous deed should not be checked by cold counsel." —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I'd support this nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do I love repeat nominations as a concept? Not particularly. But if there are to be repeat nominations, Novem is absolutely deserving of a repeat. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, definitely deserved 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat noms should be done very sparingly, but this is one I can get behind. Designing and coordinating AELECT is a massive undertaking that deserves recognition. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: We had this discussion a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations#2nd nomination within a year. Recent activity deserves renewed recognition. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 02:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Novem thoroughly deserves another EOTW, but it would be nice if we could do that without subtracting from the number of new recipients—after all, recognizing "unsung heroes" is important too. Maybe we could hand out the repeat award in addition to the usual award for the week. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think awarding Novem would be taking away from another editor's recognition, they'd just be recognized a week later. I appreciate the sentiment behind this, but I do think it would be confusing to suddenly have two Editors of the Week, then back to one Editor of the Week as usual! If the nominations list were perpetually backlogged, I might see the applicability of it, but it's typically the opposite, in my experience. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added #604/Novem to the accepted queue. He is eight in line. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]