Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User/Criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is discuss and vote on the criteria for Adopters within the Adopt-a-User program.

So far consensus has been reached on the following, please see previous discussion here and here:

  • Adopters should be available often, and are always willing to help their adoptee(s).
  • Adopters should not be current adoptees.
  • Adopters do not have to be members of Esperanza, Concordia, or Kindness Campaign.
  • Adoptees only need to have one Adopter (though they can have more).
  • Adopters should not have any recent blocks or too many vandal warnings. (need to decide on length of time/number - see below)
  • Adopters should have a minimum number of edits (need to decide on number and if location important - see below)

NOTE: If you joined this program before these guidelines are instituted, you do not have to meet these requirements.

Opposition to the above criteria:


Contents

[edit] Further debate on specific issues

[edit] Rules or guidelines

Impossible to enforce if these criteria are rules, therefore should be guidelines. If someone becomes an adopter who does not meet the guidelines then adopter and adoptee should be informed of concerns raised. Adoptee should also be encouraged to have "co-adopter".

Approve:

  1. Lethaniol 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Anthony.bradbury 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is a good one. CattleGirl talk | e@ 06:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Daniel Olsen 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Most certainly. —¡Randfan! 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

[edit] Blocks and Vandalism

Should not have been blocked (exclude autoblocks applied inadvertently) in the last 6 months or vandalised in the last 3 months.

Approve:

  1. Lethaniol 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Anthony.bradbury 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. CattleGirl talk | e@ 06:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Daniel Olsen 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. —¡Randfan! 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Though it's going to eliminate me...

Oppose:

Comments:

As blocks are more serious than vandalism, should have longer time limit. Also a new user may start by vandalising but may quicker take on the spirit of Wikipedia. Lethaniol 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Should also depend on the intensity (length) of the block. —¡Randfan! 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum number of edits

Adopters should have a minimum number of 500 edits.

Approve:

  1. Lethaniol 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Anthony.bradbury 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. CattleGirl talk | e@ 06:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Daniel Olsen 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. 500's good. As a total. —¡Randfan! 01:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments: Some people have suggested that there should be a minimum number of edits in the Namespace or Wikipedia Namespace. Suggest that though this may be what we want it may make the criteria overly complicated. So should go for higher edit count of +250, have put 500 up for vote, as most people with this number of edits will have a reasonable experience across Wikipedia. Lethaniol 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If people are not happy with this suggestion, then everyone could just state their desired minimum and we then take the median or mode average. NOTE can not use mean average as would be vastly biased by the user who request 1,000,000 edits. Lethaniol 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer 1,000 edits, and that should exclude edits on the user's own user page. Anthony.bradbury 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this (500 edits) is fine. I mean, when I write this I have 1397 edits ([1]), less than many, however I believe I've shown myself to be a solid editor. 500 is fine, and of course, we here can, as we said before, notify the adoptee if their adopter does not meet requirements. CattleGirl talk | e@ 06:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EAdopt-a-User_Criteria_d2c1.html"