Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer awards
All editors (whether or not they are DRN volunteers) are invited to offer suggestions for implementation and execution of this award program. The idea is still in the Brain-storming stage and critical feedback is requested from all editors.Even though this is a talk page, Please do not create a new level 2 header. Instead, use the discussion header for general discussion or other apt. headers for other purposes. This is to ensure all discussion during the brainstorming stage remains in one place.
Ideas and suggestions[edit]
Please mention your ideas and suggestions by adding a third level heading and then writing briefly about it. Make sure the idea is not already present before making a suggestion. Instead add a note below the suggestion by commenting on the same.
Sample idea 1[edit]
Suggestion. Replace this with your own suggestion ~~~~
To Do[edit]
Please add accepted ideas and suggestions here. This section is to be edited only by current or past coordinators. Update the status of ongoing work accordingly.
Help wanted
Your help is needed to implement the following tasks. When you wish to help in a particular task, please sign below it (indented) and mention what you can help with so that others may know (this avoids multiple people doing the same work and thus, saves time and energy):
- Create templates for the awards! You may take a cue from WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Awards. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Any ideas by anyone is welcome! 
We can discuss things here! Yashovardhan (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note that an RFC for implementing this scheme will be conducted after the brainstorming stage is complete. There is no timeframe within which we have to implement this scheme but I am looking forward to give out the first set in September itself. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Support--But I don't think an RFC will be at all necessary!Winged Blades Godric 16:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: Its just in the brainstorming stage now. I would love to have wider community input on how I can implement this. I left some messages at some places and tried advertising it at others but till now I dont see anything worthwhile to even consider working on it. For starters we would need proper templates and standard criterias for forming this. I am looking for input from @Robert McClenon, TransporterMan, and ProgrammingGeek: and all other volunteers. You are the first one yet. If I don't get much feedback (+ve or -ve) within a couple of weeks, I might even close all this. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with WBoG that, however this goes, no RFC will be needed unless there is substantial dispute about it (and if that happens, then shame on us). I don't object to the award scheme, but I have some substantial doubt about its ongoing maintenance and utilization once the current crop of participants here moves on to greener Wiki-pastures. And it shouldn't be set up in a way which imposes any substantial additional burden on future operations or processing or on future coordinators, it should be take-it-or-leave-it. In its current form, the burden is minimal and I think that's okay. On the other hand, the ease of gaining these awards makes them seem a great deal like participation awards with little incentive value. In short, I have no strong objection, but the proof of the program will be to see how much it is used, especially in the future. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan and Winged Blades of Godric: This was one thing I was worried about - that it will increase the administrative burden. Proposing an RFC was my bad, lets forget it for a moment and think about this. In the current sysytem, the awards are given by individuals to other individuals. Having a community system will mean the awards having more value attached to them. However, we will have to prevent the value from degrading by making it easy to get. Maybe we can make it yearly or half-yearly but that's all to be decided later. Currently, I don't see any volunteer being given any award whatsoever. Even Robert wasn't awarded for his hard work here. The only award he got was when he completed his term as a coordinator and that's a sort of a compulsory award. If I hadn't given it to him, he would have self-awarded it himself. What I want to do is to recognise the contributors here at the DRN which is lacking. This might only increase awareness of this noticeboard and get more volunteers working. As a matter of fact, there are only 4-5 active volunteers while there are more than 18 signed up (even after the last roll call). And lets not deny it, it affects this noticeboard. Take for instance the situation right now, there are 2 open cases - 1 in which all participants have filed their statements but it has not yet been opened. This only discourages people from using this noticeboard. If volunteers work actively, even if just to get some recognition, it will be a great positive step. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with WBoG that, however this goes, no RFC will be needed unless there is substantial dispute about it (and if that happens, then shame on us). I don't object to the award scheme, but I have some substantial doubt about its ongoing maintenance and utilization once the current crop of participants here moves on to greener Wiki-pastures. And it shouldn't be set up in a way which imposes any substantial additional burden on future operations or processing or on future coordinators, it should be take-it-or-leave-it. In its current form, the burden is minimal and I think that's okay. On the other hand, the ease of gaining these awards makes them seem a great deal like participation awards with little incentive value. In short, I have no strong objection, but the proof of the program will be to see how much it is used, especially in the future. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: Its just in the brainstorming stage now. I would love to have wider community input on how I can implement this. I left some messages at some places and tried advertising it at others but till now I dont see anything worthwhile to even consider working on it. For starters we would need proper templates and standard criterias for forming this. I am looking for input from @Robert McClenon, TransporterMan, and ProgrammingGeek: and all other volunteers. You are the first one yet. If I don't get much feedback (+ve or -ve) within a couple of weeks, I might even close all this. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Aloha! There is an example of something very similar I used to be involved with that you could use as an example and even a template if you wanted. It's called; "Editor of the Week". We had a donation of a special award logo that each participant can place on their page; 
. it's nicknamed the "Eddie".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Restarting discussion[edit]
- @Winged Blades of Godric, TransporterMan, Robert McClenon, and Mark Miller: Hi, I returned to wikipedia after a very long time and see that this discussion is as it is where it was left. Should we go on and implement this scheme or should this be closed down? Also @Kostas20142: Congratulations on becoming the new coordinator. What are your views on this? Yashovardhan (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- I most definitely agree with this, as an idea. Unfortunately, for the time being I don't have anything specific to propose, however I will try to think of something and come back to propose it. Regarding the lack of participation, I think we could send a mass message to all volunteers inviting them to participate, if no objections on that. --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again, I have no overwhelming objection, but I'm concerned about the burden on coordinators. I wonder if promoting greater utilization of the existing award scheme wouldn't do just as well (acknowledging in passing that I have a vested interest in that since I created it heh, heh, heh). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC) PS: As for the small number of volunteers at any given time, I think that may just be due to the nature of content dispute resolution. Despite what many hat collectors who list themselves in the volunteer list think, it's not very sexy, it's not really a path to adminship (or other fame or authority), you can't block or ban people, you have to have the patience of Job and the thickest of skins, you have to have the fortitude not to be crushed by failure, and on top of all those negatives it's damned hard work if you do it right. And we're surprised that we don't have many volunteers who stick around? — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Ofcourse, I am not much surprised by the lack of volunteers! Its a really hard job here and not as simple and authoritative as it seems from afar. Why else do we have such a long list of volunteers and end up with backlogs of unmoderated disputes? All I expected here was the participation of the 6-7 active volunteers! I don't think this is good enough to replace the present service awards by any means TransporterMan. I'd instead have this in parallel to the present system since I find the present awards under utilized. Except for the sorta compulsory awards for coordinators, I don't see anyone awarding any service award to any volunteer at all. @Kostas20142: As for the mass message, I think we should send it only after the present roll calls are done with, if we should send it at all.Excuse me if I sound 'different' here but its 2 AM here and I am going to sleep! Yashovardhan (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again, I have no overwhelming objection, but I'm concerned about the burden on coordinators. I wonder if promoting greater utilization of the existing award scheme wouldn't do just as well (acknowledging in passing that I have a vested interest in that since I created it heh, heh, heh). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC) PS: As for the small number of volunteers at any given time, I think that may just be due to the nature of content dispute resolution. Despite what many hat collectors who list themselves in the volunteer list think, it's not very sexy, it's not really a path to adminship (or other fame or authority), you can't block or ban people, you have to have the patience of Job and the thickest of skins, you have to have the fortitude not to be crushed by failure, and on top of all those negatives it's damned hard work if you do it right. And we're surprised that we don't have many volunteers who stick around? — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Re-restarting discussion[edit]
All currently active volunteers have been invited via the newsletter to comment. I am awaiting feedback --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why not just design a sequence of badges that keeps track of the number of disputes a volunteer has moderated and after a certain number is reached, the volunteer can display the next level up badge - like the editor badges? File:Editor - iron star.jpg It's something the individual volunteer can keep up with on their own, and one of our bot savvy volunteers can set it up to keep track of the count each time a volunteer closes a dispute. Atsme📞📧 13:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)