Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2013/2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Overview[edit]

The project coordinators are responsible for maintaining the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. They are the designated points of contact for procedural issues and are responsible for ensuring that the project as a whole is properly informed of them.

To provide some examples of coordinator duties: the coordinators manage the proposal and creation of new task forces; ensure that project announcement and task lists are kept up-to-date; initiate drafting of guidelines needed by the project; organize the category system; oversee the recruitment of new members, including the use of project notices and other advertising methods; create and maintain collaborative projects if any; maintain the project page and the various guidelines in it in a clean and easy-to-use state; monitor technical policies and ensure that project templates satisfy them; and assist in organizing and promoting any Backlog Elimination Drives.

They are also expected to generally assist project members with any questions or concerns.

The coordinator positions do not entail any executive power.

Positions[edit]

  • Lead Coordinator (one open position): will have overall responsibility for procedural and administrative matters within the project.
  • Assistant Coordinator (three open positions): will assist the Lead Coordinator by focusing on specific areas within the project that require special attention. These areas will be selected based on need and interest among the coordinators.

Election process[edit]

  • The election process will run for two weeks, from June 16, 00:01 UTC, until June 30, 23:59 UTC.
  • Any member of the project may nominate themselves for either position by creating a new section under Nominations below and copying the sample form below. Nominees only interested in one position should indicate this when adding their names. Candidates need not make extensive statements if they do not wish to do so.
  • The elections will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support a nominee for either position. If the nominee is running for both positions and you wish to support them for only one, please make a note to that effect as part of your vote.
  • Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or to make general comments.

Incumbents[edit]

Name Position Standing for re-election?
BDD (talk · contribs) Coordinator No
Miniapolis (talk · contribs) Coordinator No
Torchiest (talk · contribs) Lead Yes

Nominations[edit]

Torchiest[edit]

Torchiest (talk · contribs) • Interested in Lead position.

Hello everyone. I've now been helping coordinate the Guild for a year, and I'm willing to continue doing so, if you'll have me. Over the course of my tenure here, I've initiated a number of new activities, including the blitzes and copy edit of the month contests. I've also written scripts to help rapidly process the results of our events, so that awards get sent out almost immediately after they conclude. If someone else has a strong desire to be lead, I'm also willing to move to an assistant position and act as a source of information and guidance for new coordinators.

Support[edit]

  1. Will continue to do a fine job. Miniapolis 00:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Certainly! The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Great lead. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Guild has improved under Torchiest's leadership.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It's been a pleasure working under Torchiest. I'm happy to see him continuing. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very good lead. APerson241 (talk!) 14:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think Torchiest is doing a fine job and will continue to do so. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm not technically a member, but I wanted to voice my support for what I've seen of this part of the wiki and say I hope it continues. Annuity in Perpetuity (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions[edit]

  1. Of these two: (diff 1), (diff 2), which do you think is the better copyedit and why? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While both are fine work, the latter is less like a copy edit and more like a snapshot of a massive article writing project, which I see is still in progress almost two months later. It's similar to what I said about Northamerica1000's submission in March. —Torchiest talkedits 04:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you prefer minor edits that do not improve the article all that much over major ones that do? If so, why? Is article writing entirely different than copyediting? If so, why? Also, what does it "still being in progress" matter? The contest limits the copyedit to one month. Are you saying that an editor should never work on an article for more than one month? If so, why? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do feel like article writing is mostly different than copy editing, since the latter is about correcting mistakes, and the former is about crafting entirely new text. The idea of the contest is to show a completed copy edit, in my opinion. Others can use whatever standards they like to make their decisions. —Torchiest talkedits 12:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1) If "the idea of the contest is to show a completed copy edit", then that would in many cases exclude longer articles from submission, since anyone can edit a 2,000 word article in a few days, but not necessarily a 10,000 word article. 2) Regarding your statement above: "copy editing ... is about correcting mistakes", were more mistakes corrected in example #1 than in example #2? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Torchiest, I guess my main issue with your reasoning is this: If a good copyedit is exclusively defined as one that corrects mistakes, then via reductio ad absurdum a poorly written article that is technically mistake free would not ever be a strong candidate for the copyedit contest. I've read plenty of Wikipedia articles that while grammatically correct, lack engaging prose. In sum, I think you should at least consider the value of a copyedit that improves an article overall, regardless of the number of typos or errant commas corrected. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baffle gab1978[edit]

Baffle gab1978 (talk · contribs) • Interested in Assistant position.

It's my pleasure to nominate my colleague Baffle gab1978 for the position of coordinator. Baffle has been active with the GOCE for a long time, and has been a big help with the mundane, behind-the-scenes tasks that keep the project humming. I strongly believe that the person who does the work should get proper credit. All the best, Miniapolis 15:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Support as nom! Miniapolis 00:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Looks like you would do a fine job. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You're already doing it, so this is an easy yes. —Torchiest talkedits 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. Doing great things already. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. - I like their style of dealing with others and as Stfg stated above, they are already quite involved and knowledgeable. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. A thoughtful editor who takes on tough articles in a thorough manner. Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions[edit]

Jonesey95[edit]

Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) • Interested in Assistant position.

I'm delighted to nominate Jonesey95 to serve as an assistant coordinator. In recent months, Jonesey95 has made a good contribution to the Guild, both with his copy edits and by helping to keep drive pages up to date. I'm sure he would make an excellent coordinator. --Stfg (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Will do a great job. Miniapolis 00:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You'll do well. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Already helping out, so let's make it official! —Torchiest talkedits 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as nom. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jonesey had made some impressive drive contributions and will make a good coordinator. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No worries. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions[edit]

The Utahraptor[edit]

The Utahraptor (talk · contribs) • Interested in Assistant position.

I've been with the Guild since the beginning of its Backlog elimination drives, and I've been a coordinator in the past. Granted, I had to resign twice because I had to deal with things in my life, but I've since learned how to better manage my time and I think I can dedicate some time to being coordinator again. I understand there may be some concerns regarding how active I've been lately, so if you have any questions post them below and I'll do my best to answer them. Thank you for your consideration. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Good to have you back. Miniapolis 00:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I look forward to working with you again. —Torchiest talkedits 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Welcome back! --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Glad you're back! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions[edit]

Current time is 08:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Coordinators/2013/2&oldid=1088277881"