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 the 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)
That I approve anddisapprove you, Cattlegirl. I rather think the Adopter has 500 mainspace edits and 1000 totals edits. Edits from other wikis are fine ^_^--GravityTalk 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a little over 1300 edits, with less than 500 mainspace edits (according to wannabe Kate). I feel that I really don't have the experience to adopt anyone, and furthermore, I'm hesitant to say that I have "graduated" from AaU - in spite of Lethaniol saying that I'm good to go. Yes, I started strong, but now that "real life" is stepping in and I can't be on the computer 24/7, the edits are becoming a little more challenging, a little more in-depth, and a lot less in number. I would like to think that I'm becoming a better editor, but an editor ready to mentor someone else? nope. My "two bits" would be at least 1000 edits total AND 500 mainspace edits. This way, if someone wants to experiment around with their userpage, they can - but they still have to get out there and edit articles to be ready to adopt. Just my opinion.... - NDCompuGeek 08:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I do not believe that there should be a requirement for mainspace edits as some of us are metapedianist. After I made over 2300 edits, only 300 edits were to the mainspace and 200 to userspace (I have a "status alert" thing which is often edited). Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
As of right now, I have 222 edits with 104 in the mainspace. I think that 500-600 total edits w/250+ in the mainspace would be a good requirement to be an Adopter. I know I am not experienced enough with Wikipedia to guide someone else (among other things, I have a tendency to not use the "Preview" button), but I'm not sure if that would always be the case for everyone. Anyway, I think a good portion of the user's 500-600 edits should be required to be in the mainspace. Thingg (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues

I have two questions:

  • Why is there no time-based criterion? Does it make sense, for example, for a user to adopt after less than a months' experience?
  • If someone offers to be an adopter, but does not meet the criteria (e.g. for blocks), should they be encouraged to indicate this in their entry?

Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The specific user I had concerns about has now been indefinitely banned, but for future cases, I think we should expect at least 6 months. For comparison, what's the quickest anyone became an admin (recently)? 500 edits is nothing to some of our newbie edit-counters, but typically they are not especially qualified to mentor. Bovlb (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)