UESPWiki talk:Mentor Program/Archive 1

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Semi Protection
This is an archive of past UESPWiki talk:Mentor Program discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Mentor Program Talk

What does everyone think of the program? --Aristeo 16:33, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Although a new and unknown member, I believe it is both an innovative and beneficial addition to this site. I am considering delving further into certain facets of Elder Scrolls lore, and would welcome the aid such "mentors" may give at that time. For my part, I would urge the administrators - and those who volunteer their efforts - to continue their support of the Mentor Program. -- booyah_boy August the 3rd, 2006

I like this idea a lot and it feels like a good addition to the site. However, I do have some thoughts, for instance, maybe a notice of this program should be either put up on the main page as a news item or made mention of in the intro paragraph of the main page. Sometimes, I feel like certain pages on the site are difficult to find even though wiki is fairly standard, and I've been here awhile. Although I realize it has a nice size mention on the editors page (where new editors should most definately go regardless), someone new who might have questions or is just hungry to learn would most likely immediately see this on the front page and be able to get specified help. I don't know if this could become overwhelming due to people who don't feel like reading any of the wiki edit guide and would rather ask redundant and simple questions, but honestly I don't feel like it would. If you're willing to contribute to a wiki, reading a bit probably doesn't bother you, but this is the internet. --AlbinoMudcrab 23:07, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

I just found this page. I would have loved to have known about this when I first started editing. I was thinking perhaps it would be noticed more if it was mentioned on the page when you're editing an article. Something like, "If you would like personal guidance with the Wiki's style and methods, feel free to contact a Mentor." --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 21:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
How about meeting you half-way? There's already a link to Help:Contents that shows up when you're editing an article, and I just moved it higher up so it will hopefully be more visible to editors, since it probably is one of the more important links in that list. And on the Help:Contents page I've added a new section for "New Editors" that includes a link to the Mentor Program. So in two clicks (both hopefully not too hard to find) you can get to this page, instead of just one click.
I agree that it should be easier to find some of these pages, and I've been working on adding more cross links to various help pages (and anyone who'd like to help is welcome: the UESPWiki and Help pages can be edited by any editor). In my last round of work on this stuff, I already added a fair number of links that wouldn't have been there when you first started editing (e.g., the Getting Started page). On the other hand, it's hard for me to convince myself that a link to the mentor program is higher priority than ten other links on the Help:Contents page. And adding all of those links to the text that appears when you're editing a page seems like overkill. --Nephele 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
After more thought, I agree. The Help:Contents page is great. It's changed a lot since I last looked into it. It would be a little too much to have this mentioned specifically when there are so many other resources for new editors. Just out of curiosity, how much is the Mentor program used? --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 00:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Qualifications and Duties

Whilst not wanting to create kind of superclass here, I think it's quite obvious that some people on the current list are not capable of mentoring somebody. Furthermore, there are a couple of people who haven't been around in some time and who would probably not respond to a request for help. Given this situation, I'd like to open a discussion on whether or not there should be qualifications for Mentor-hood, and whether or not that status should be self-granted and irrevocable. You can probably guess my thoughts from the above and I know one or two others share those concerns. Any other thoughts? --RpehTCE 18:12, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I definitely agree that this page should provide a list of editors who would be able to help a new contributor to the site. Therefore, the mentors should be people who are active on the site (at the least, active enough to respond to someone's request) and have enough familiarity with the site to be able to answer basic questions -- questions about how to edit not how to play the game. Ideally it wouldn't be necessary to impose rules and regulate this page, but experience to date clearly shows that without rules the mentors added to the list don't end up meeting these basic expectations.
I have intermittently made some attempts to limit the list to active editors, by deleting editors who have been inactive for three months or who have stated that they are no longer involved with the site. So I haven't been treating it as irrevocable, although there hasn't been any real discussion about that ;) I think it would be good to make active participation in the site an official requirement.
The trickier part will be coming up with qualifications before becoming a mentor in the first place. Two possible ideas are:
  • I'd say that no matter how much experience an editor may have with wikis elsewhere, any editor needs to have some experience specifically on UESPWiki (and not just with editing their user page and talk page) before they can reasonably answer someone else's questions about standard UESPWiki practices. So I'd be in favour of some minimum number (50?) of edits as one requirement.
  • I think it's also reasonable to require that anyone who becomes a mentor can be contacted offline (i.e., the "email this user" feature must work). Otherwise, contacting a mentor amounts to just posting an open message on a talk page, at which point anyone could respond to the message.
Those two rules alone would help a lot, based on the current list of mentors (although watch out, Lurlock, because unless you validate your new email address you'll get disqualified, too!).
One other question this also raises, however, is editing user pages to delete user boxes. If someone is deleted from this page for whatever reason, the Mentor userbox really needs to be deleted from the user page, too, in order for the editor to not appear in the Mentors category. Is it acceptable for another editor to delete the Mentor userbox? Should a request be posted on the talk page first requesting that the ex-mentor delete it? What if the ex-mentor does not respond? --NepheleTalk 19:19, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
It makes sense that there should be some qualifications met before a user is listed here as a mentor. I think maybe the page should state that anyone who adds their name to this list will be researched.
It could work something like this:
  • When someone adds their name to the page, whoever checks that edit will check to see if the user met the requirements. The requirements will be listed on the page. I like what's been suggested so far; email capabilities, at least 50 constructive non-user-namespace edits.
  • If a user who put his or her name on the list is found to fall short of the expected qualifications, the responsible editor will remove the user's name from the list, then note that it was done and why on both this page and the user's talk page.
Along this line, the following editors would all need to be removed: Albothegreat, Ace62394, Athraniel, and Lord Geogorath.
Note: the enabled email function requirement may need more discussion; I just checked and all of the following would not meet that requirement: Willyhead, Eshe, Playjex, TheRealLurlock, Jesus Lover, and Somercy.
It also makes sense that users who have been inactive for three months or more should be removed from the list, and I think it should be noted here and on the user's talk page that it was done and why. Along this line, the following editors would need to be removed: AlbinoMudcrab (06/07) and Dylnuge (06/07).
As far as the mentor userboxes go, I would say that the best thing would be to request on the user talk page that the user remove the userbox, and explain why. If no response in one month, then I'd say we could remove it, along with another note on the talk page explaining that it was removed. The only reason I suggest such a long time to wait for a response is that it is a user page.
So, what do y'all think? --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 23:56, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Frankly, since the mentor program sees little use, I don't think it is worth the time to clean it up. --Ratwar 00:18, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm hoping that will change partly because I've been including a link to the page in the Welcome messages I've been spamming to all new users. I think it's worth having something like this even if only one or two people are helped in any case. Nephele's and GuildKnight's suggestions sound good to me. As far as removing the userbox is concerned, I think a month is a little long to wait; a week would seem more reasonable. The ban on editing user pages should always be avoidable for administrative reasons anyway and if somebody is advertising themselves as something that they're not, that would qualify. --RpehTCE 03:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Nag, nag, nag. I enabled emails again, so that ought not be a problem, but can someone email me to test that, so I see how it looks? Somercy 11:58, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I enabled it too. And Somercy, you can actually email yourself to test it. Worked for me, anyway ;). --Eshetalk12:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, but it was nice to get mail-loves from Robius. Somercy 12:42, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
And nice to get a reply! But now I have to ask: "Glasscrisp Thursday"??? --RpehTCE 12:54, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I personally disagree with the e-mail requirement for several reasons. First, at least in my case, it is far easier and more reliable to contact me via my talk page or IRC than to try e-mailing me. I check UESP several times a day, so it's more likely I'll see it. Secondly, more often than not, I feel there shouldn't be much reason for someone seeking mentoring to make their request privately off of the site. If you post a question on the site, you have a greater chance of getting it answered, because your question will be seen by many people. If you send it privately to just one person, you're expecting that that one person will have the answer you need and the time and energy to go about answering it, which may not always be the case. Most of the time, even posting a question on somebody's talk page may be unnecessary - using the talk page of the article in question is usually better, or possibly the Community Portal or Administrator Noticeboard depending on the situation. It should also be clearly indicated that Mentors are for help with editing, not general questions about the games, which most people seem more likely to use it for, unfortunately. The last thing I need is an inbox full of "What's the best sword to use to kill Umbra?" type questions directed to me personally, and I'm sure most other editors would agree on that. I've used e-mail for two things on UESP. One is for internal politics, to avoid airing our dirty laundry in public on the site, and the other is when working on a project involving large amounts of boring data-transfer between myself and another editor, though even that I'm more likely to do on-site than off-site these days. I do agree that it's important that someone claiming to be a Mentor should be easy to contact, but that does not necessarily mean such contact should be through e-mail. --TheRealLurlock Talk 14:57, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

My problem with your argument is that often people who are comfortable asking questions on talk pages or the Community Portal don't want/need a mentor. IMO people who want a mentor are likely to be editors who want to be able to ask questions offline, for whatever reason (for example, they're worried that the question is stupid, or they're not sure where to ask a question, or they just want to say "look at page X. Is what I did OK?"). Therefore I think that some means of contact other than just an editor's talk page is important for mentors. Maybe it doesn't have to be email: IM on a forum account, or regular use of IRC chatroom would accomplish the same purpose.
I'm fine with emphasizing that the questions are supposed to be related to editing, and that questions about gameplay are unlikely to get answered. In my experience, the questions that people have asked me via email have never been pointless questions like "how should I kill Umbra". Many have specifically been about the wiki; those that have been about gameplay have generally been followup to edits made on the site. And obviously the people who sent the emails were more comfortable with contacting me offline than posting the question on my talk page. I think that it's an important alternative to my talk page (even though I get emailed less often than I get asked questions on my talk page), and I definitely don't think that other editors should be scared away from providing an email address based on the unfounded fear that it will be used for pointless questions. --NepheleTalk 15:54, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree that some qualifications should be there for being a mentor. And I like what's been suggested so far. But 50 edits are too less for me. I'd suggest something in the region of 200. --Mankar Camoran 10:13, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

So, to kind of flesh out what would need to be done, I created a page in my sandbox. Thoughts, anyone? BTW, as I've said, the email issue might need a little more discussion. There's at least one editor I'd like to see remain a mentor. --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 20:00, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
You beat me to it! I've been meaning to make a list like yours for a few days so thanks for getting in there first. That seems like a good list to me. I'd definitely go for the higher number of edits to qualify (200). I'd also have email as a requirement mainly for the reasons listed above by Nephele - It would be a shame to lose the three editors affected but these things happen. --RpehTCE 03:01, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

(undent) I think we have at least the beginnings of a consensus here, given that nobody else has replied to GuildKnight's suggestions. So, on Wednesday morning (7 days after the suggestion) I'll post the messages where needed. Another week and I (we) start removing Mentor user boxes from user pages. Agree? --RpehTCE 13:07, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I had actually forgotten about this discussion. I agree. GuildKnight's sandbox gives a very good idea of what needs to be done. But I would certainly like to see Lurlock remain a mentor. --Mankar Camoran 15:19, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
What if we make the requirements e-mail OR IRC? I'm on IRC all the time. At any rate, I'm far more likely to see and respond to questions asked on my Talk page than in my e-mail. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow people to keep their e-mail private and still be able to offer mentoring. --TheRealLurlock Talk 19:25, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
Basically, I like everything that GuildKnight has put together.
Although I'm not fundamentally opposed to making the requirement email or IRC, it seems like the change would make the requirements more difficult to verify. Anyone can say "yeah, now that I'm a mentor I plan to be in IRC all the time" but that doesn't mean that the person will ever show up in IRC. Also, I'm not sure why we should be making an exception like this just for an admin: in my opinion, admins should all have email addresses on record so that they can be contacted if necessary. Finally, adding email contact keeps your email address private: the email address is never displayed or in any way shown to the person contacting you. But as I started by saying, I wouldn't be opposed to the change if it's necessary to reach a consensus here. --NepheleTalk 01:09, 4 November 2007 (EST)
The consensus seems to be for having e-mail enabled. As Nephele already pointed out, some people may be more comfortable asking questions in private. So I basically agree that e-mail should be enabled. But I don't know what to say to Lurlock. He is one of the best here, so may be he can be persuaded to enable e-mail... --Mankar CamoranTCE 08:47, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Okay, I may have been able to come up with a compromise... check out the latest difference to my sandbox. --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 18:09, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Works for me! Thanks for doing all of this, GuildKnight :) --NepheleTalk 18:51, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Works for me, too. I don't really have any particular preference in this matter. I'll be happy with whatever you decide. --Mankar CamoranTCE 08:18, 7 November 2007 (EST)

(Mercy-ize the colons)So, is it cool to start following through on the list in my sandbox? Is there anything OK for me to do, or should it be an admin? --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 09:11, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Since the admins have already agreed, I think you can go ahead if you want. --Mankar CamoranTCE 09:31, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks for working on it. It is very much appreciated. --Mankar CamoranTCE 09:57, 7 November 2007 (EST)
What was that about the colons?! Anyway, it looks good. I feel like I've been a success as a mentor, at least in one case...
Also, do we...remove...Rpeh? I mean, he says he's gone...Somercy 10:38, 7 November 2007 (EST)
I was referring to your well-known disdain for them! ;) Anyway, as far as Rpeh goes, I figured we'd just leave him until he's been gone for three months, maybe with a notice that says he's withdrawn from the wiki. --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 10:42, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Why some editors were removed from the list of "Available Mentors"

This is a courtesy message to inform all users that the following user profiles were removed from the list on the main article because they did not meet one or more of the expectations listed on the main article:

Application

Feeling that I get familiair with the way this wiki works a bit more every day, and finding it nice to help other people; I would wish to apply as mentor. Now I know the policy was to just add your name to the list. But as I noticed some of the conditions were changed, I felt I could better post a notice on the talk page than to be bold. --Timenn < talk > 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Absolutely no objection from me. You meet the requirements easily so go ahead and add yourself! --RpehTCE 14:34, 26 November 2007 (EST)

New Qualification Standards?

Looking at the requirements on the Programme's page, I think it's time that we raised the bar a little. I mean, how difficult is it to simply rack up 200 constructive edits? I would rather have this at about 800 edits. Nearly all (If not all) of the Mentors already listed have more than 800, and I think it would not only further assure us of the user's site capabilities, but it would also mean that those who wished to become Mentors would be quite well-known already around the site. 200 edits doesn't even make the top 50 anymore! --HMSVictoryTalk 14:45, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

While raising the bar a little might be in order, multiplying the edit requirement by four seems to be more than "a little". Granted, I wouldn't qualify for 800 edits (in fact, this post will put me at 500 "straight" edits, and obviously short of that in the "constructive" edits), so I've got something of a vested interest, but keep in mind that any attempt by someone unknown and/or unskilled can be overturned by the various "higher-ups". In fact, this sort of thing just occurred about a month ago, as I recall. Also, by setting the bar too high, you effectively make the Mentor Programme very nearly into a Moderators' Programme. Better to let junior mentors come in and help where they can, leaving the more senior members to moderating and/or mentoring in the more difficult editing skills.--Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I think 200 edits is quite alot, and most likely enough. Just because the average edit count keeps rising, thanks to our current members, doesn't mean we have to raise the bar for "new" editors. 200 edits was chosen because it was considered to be a number that should guarantee the experience of the Mentor. The top 50 has no effect on this. --Timenn < talk > 10:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Timenn. If anything, I think we ought to be raising the standards for Patrollers (which currently only requires 100 edits outside of user space). The Mentor Program is great for the few who use it, but there's a much higher demand for Patrollers than Mentors at the moment. –Eshetalk 11:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Really, I wouldn't object to raising the bar for mentors, but I don't think judging by edit count alone is what would be needed. Edit Count is about dedication and time served to the wiki, mentoring requires a lot more skills than that.-Ratwar 16:01, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Honestly, I don't think edit count should even factor into it necessarily. There's a number of people (who shall remain nameless, but you all know who I mean) that technically have an enough edits but that we wouldn't dream of giving Patroller rights to, or even allowing to have Mentor status. The key word here is quality or constructive edits, which cannot be determined by number alone. This is why mainly only the votes of current Patrollers really hold any validity in new Patroller nominations. As Patrollers (and/or Admins), we've been watching the edits fairly regularly, and we know who is and is not deserving of the rights. Likewise for Mentors, though this is a less formal position, which to date is still largely an empty honor. (I've only once ever had anyone officially approach me for Mentoring, and that person is now also a Mentor.) At any rate, I think we can generally tell pretty quickly if a new editor is deserving of Mentor/Patroller status, regardless of edit-count. Obviously, we have to have seen enough edits from a new editor to get a feel for their level of skill, but I don't think that arbitrarily setting a quota on the number needed is really necessary. When somebody is ready for the position, it's usually pretty obvious. --TheRealLurlock Talk 21:39, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

New Mentor requirement suggestion

I've been thinking about adding a new requirement for Mentorship: The user must not have been blocked from editing in the previous three months. Any opinions? --GuildKnightTalk2me 18:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that's obvious enough as it is. A user who has been blocked will most likely be removed from the list anyway. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 09:04, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but I'm saying that, should a user be blocked temporarily, when he or she returns, that user would not be eligible to add his or her name to the mentors page for at least three months. Let's ask a question: "Should UESP have a page that basically suggests a new editor seek advice from an editor who recently exhibited unacceptable behavior to such a degree that he or she was blocked?" --GuildKnightTalk2me 00:34, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Sounds fair enough but what about incidents like this? I don't know if this should count towards this rule or not.--Volanaro 02:20, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
I would say that edit wars are fair game in terms of the blocking rule (especially in light of the follow-up edit war in the very next section). If someone can't restrain themselves from getting into an edit war, they probably aren't someone we want to have teaching those habits to others. :) If an edit war begins, you give up on it as soon as it's obvious what's happening and report it to an administrator to have them deal with it. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 02:28, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree with RH. There's nothing wrong with any editor offering their assistance to someone else, no matter what they've done, but it's completely different for UESP to have a page that encourages a new editor to seek assistance from these people. Any editor who has disregarded UESP's rather lenient rules system so much that he or she has been blocked from editing being included as one of these people could seem strange and rather... irresponsible. --GuildKnightTalk2me 21:40, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes I agree. I would suggest that the rule be applied from now on, however. It would be unfair to retroactively apply it to those that are currently within the scope of the change. –RpehTCE 05:15, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. I would also suggest that in conjunction with this, any block should also revoke the person's Mentor status for the same 3 months (barring account hi-jacking and such). --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 13:45, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Rpeh: that seems fair. I also agree that any current mentor should/would be removed from the list in the event that he or she is blocked. --GuildKnightTalk2me 20:48, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I think we're all agreed. Would you like to do the honours? –RpehTCE 01:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

My pleasure; take a look. --GuildKnightTalk2me 21:26, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Sections

I'd like to propose a reorganization of the Mentor page. Instead of having a list of users and some blurb, we split it into sections eg. ==Morrowind==, ==Oblivion==, Shivering==, ==Morrowind Modding== so that a person looking for help can find it more easily rather than reading all the blurbs. Mentors could of course be listed in multiple sections. So what does everyone think? - Game LordTalk|Contribs 09:04, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

The only problem I can foresee with this proposal is that it may suggest that Mentors offer gameplay assistance. --GuildKnightTalk2me 00:37, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
True - mentoring is supposed to be about help with editing the site, not gameplay. Besides, we already have the "Users knowledgeable about such-and-such" Userboxes for people seeking gameplay advice. --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:46, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
The one advantage I can see to this method is that in some cases, there are different styles of page that may be present in some sections, but not others...like the Gripes, Roleplaying, Fan-fiction, etc. My general feeling, though, is that that's a fairly minor benefit. So for myself, I wouldn't object, but I wouldn't actively encourage the change, either. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Another Suggestion

Ok, we all know that mentores are required to have at least 200 constructive edits outside the user and talk namespaces. But I feel that they should also need a certain number of edits inside the talk namspace since this is where most mentoring goes on, any thoughts? --Volanaro 06:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I think the guidelines we have at the moment are fine. –RpehTCE 06:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Application for Mentor?

Ok. Well. I was told that I had to apply to be a mentor, but the page says different. Oh well, I'll apply anyway cause I don't want trouble. Anyway, I'm Tim the Patroller. I have over 400 edits to the Daggerfall section alone (hopefully all useful), with at least 30 or more new pages not including quest descriptions. I've been back for the past 3 months, so I've decided it might be a good idea to put my name in here. I was a mentor before, but I went inactive for an extended period of time due to other responsibilities and... carelessness perhaps. I should have my email enabled, if not, I still go to IRC consistently. If there's no objections, I'll add my name to the list (or apply correctly, I didn't see a place to apply) within 3 days.--Tim Talk 01:38, 5 January 2009 (EST)

You can just add your name to the list and, if you meet the qualifications, you'll be fine. In this case, deleting part of a previous discussion when applying isn't the greatest advert for your mentoring talents, but I think you'll be fine :p –RpehTCE 02:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

New Qualification

Alright, looking at the page I think the following qualification falls a bit short, "User must not have been blocked from editing within the last three months." I just don't think we should be letting in people that have any warnings in the last three months, or people that have receive multiple warnings over a long period of time (say two months). I just don't see those people as qualified. --Ratwar 12:27, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Seems like a good idea to me. –RpehTCE 12:33, 7 January 2009 (EST)
You should be banned for mind-reading Ratwar. It invades my privacy. --Tim Talk 12:52, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Might want to clarify that. A new user might receive a warning for being unfamiliar with the way the site works (e.g. page blanking instead of proposing deletion or something), and yet still be acting in good faith. Repeated warnings, I agree. If somebody's been warned once, and continues the behavior that caused the warning afterwards, then there's clearly a problem. But a single warning in the last three months shouldn't in and of itself disqualify someone.
I'd say something about having a history of getting along well with other editors should be an important consideration as well. A user with a history of getting into fights and using abusive and/or threatening language is not the sort of person we want representing us as mentors to new users.
Another thing to think about is if they have enough significant edits. A person who's got 200+ qualifying edits but all of them are just spelling/grammar fixes, I'm not sure if that's really enough. Sure they're all good edits, and improvements to the site, but would you go to them for help with formatting a table or something? If their only qualification is good spelling (admittedly rare as that talent seems to be these days), I'm not sure if they've really got what it takes to be helpful in other respects. I think users need to demonstrate some degree of familiarity with basic wiki formatting, and not just how to edit text. (Who needs help figuring out how to edit text, anyhow? If you need a mentor, it's usually for the more advanced stuff like tables, images, templates, etc.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 02:31, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Fair enough point on the warnings. I think that notices in the "Vandalism" or "Spamming" sections of UESPWiki:Messages should exclude somebody but anything in "Notices" shouldn't, since they're really advisory rather than cautionary. I also agree with your other two points, but it'll be tricky to phrase. It might be easier to say that an administrator can remove somebody from the list if there's a good reason and as long as it's explained on the talk page. –RpehTCE 02:50, 8 January 2009 (EST)

(outdent)Okay, how's about a little somethin' like this; replacing the second bullet with:

  • Anyone may add their name to this list to become a mentor; however, be aware that each new entry will be researched and existing entries are researched periodically, and all are expected to meet the standards set forth. If not met, the user’s name will be removed from this list.
Any of the following are immediate disqualifications:
  • Less than 200 constructive edits outside "User" and "Talk" namespaces.
  • Inactive on UESPWiki in the last three months.
  • Blocked from editing within the last three months.
  • Non-enabled email capabilities.
  • If a proposed mentor wishes to keep his or her email capabilities disabled, the only other option is for the user to have been a regular, active participant in IRC previous to the self-nomination. Only an administrator can determine if a user's IRC participation qualifies as "regular."
Any administratormentor may also remove an editor's name from this list provided an acceptable reason is given on the user's talk page. Some things administratorsmentors may take into consideration include, but are not limited to: frequency and severity of notices/warnings received by the user (and the user's responses), etiquette and civility displayed by the user, and familiarity with wiki formatting displayed by the user.

Thoughts? --GuildKnightTalk2me 22:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I really don't like the total edit count idea. Everything else is totally fine with me though. How about we try something like:
  • 5 constructive edits per week for the last 4 weeks
  • Has shown knowledge of templates and categories (and whatever else you want).
  • Has been a member of the community for 3 months.
I like this better because it gives a more accurate assessment of ability and activeness. --Tim Talk 22:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I think it's important to establish that the editor has made more than 20 constructive edits before the wiki basically says, "If you have questions, it's OK to ask this person." I also think your suggestion of 5 per week for the last 4 weeks may be a little too restrictive. I see no issue with editors who may occasionally be gone for a week or so being mentors; I do, however, see an issue with suggesting an editor with questions ask them of a person who may have only made 20 constructive edits. Also, being a "member of the community" does not play a role in determining if a person is fit to mentor a new editor, in my opinion. --GuildKnightTalk2me 23:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I don't like the "x edits for y weeks" concept, just because it means you can't have taken a vacation at any point within that period. And honestly, who's going to forget their stuff in a week or two? I've forgotten a few things, certainly, now that I've been much less active for several months, but I could still mentor a new editor on more than just the basics. (Though in truth, I should probably take my name off the list in any event since I'm not really active at this point.) --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (EST)

GuildKnight, the only thing I don't like about you plan is that only an administrator would be able to remove people. I'd rather it be something like any other mentor would be able to remove unsuitable people.--Ratwar 00:49, 13 January 2009 (EST)

*thinks about it* Yeah, I don't see why current mentors shouldn't be able to remove prospectives. Any other thoughts? --GuildKnightTalk2me 00:54, 13 January 2009 (EST)
I agree with RobinHood about the "x edits every y weeks" rule. I, for example, am currently not editing very much because of various chains of things in real life. I still check my talk page regularly, and my email every day though, so I'd notice if someone came to me asking for tutoring. And besides, if a user is sort of on the limit between having enough edits per week and not quite having enough edits, then adding and removing the username all the time would be pointless and unnecessary. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 09:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)

User, Talk, and Vandalism?

Can I suggest that in addition to User and Talk pages "not counting", that we also add vandalism reversion as not counting? I mean, it's great that people are proactive about reverting vandalism and other non-constructive edits, but honestly, hitting "Undo" (or whichever method of reverting you prefer) isn't really a big challenge and doesn't significantly add to someone's editing skills in terms of mentoring others. Just a thought. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 18:37, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Prev: None Up: UESPWiki talk:Mentor Program Next: None