Wikipedia:WikiProject Users

Welcome to WikiProject Users. One or more Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to rating Wikipedia editors to assess the value of their contributions to the encyclopedia. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the endeavor. If you would like to help, please assign yourself quality and importance ratings and place the project banner on your user talk page.

Goal

Good question.

Scope

All Wikipedia editors, except for those not important enough to bother assessing (if you haven't been assessed yet, that's you).

Progress

So far, this project has assessed 8 out of 48,458,406 users. Only 48,458,398 left to go!

Assessment

Quality scale

WikiProject Users quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Others' experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The user is a consummate Wikipedian. They're either already an administrator or have others constantly mistaking them for an administrator.	No matter how much you insult them, you can't get a rise out of them (then they block you).	Sit back on your laurels and enjoy the fact that you've won Wikipedia.	Jimbo Wales (As of 1 April 2024)
GA	The user has attained good Wikipedian status, having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers through the good Wikipedian nominations process. More detailed criteria The user meets the good Wikipedian criteria. A good Wikipedian is: Well written about, at significant length, from at least two reliable users that are independent of the good user candidate Verifiably a Wikipedian, not some other thing, without original research Broad in their content focus, not going into unnecessary detail on a single topic Neutral, representing viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, not pushing for an agenda Stable, not changing significantly from day to day or taking extended wikibreaks Illustrated on their user page, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio	Useful to nearly all other editors, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equaling) the quality of a featured Wikipedian.	Consider running for adminship, but be prepared for the chance it might blow up. Before you do, make sure you've gotten your enemies blocked so they can't !vote against you.	[Redacted] (As of 1 April 2024)
B	The user is generally helpful, but a little rough around the edges. Perhaps they're a legacy admin (or a former one).	The user can be expected to know what they're doing, but might have some quirks. Be careful if you try to introduce negative information about their favorite topic.	Fix a few thousand typos to boost your edit count. If you feel lazy, just set up an unauthorized bot to do it for you.	[Redacted] (As of 1 April 2024)
C	The user has some known issues, but nothing disqualifying. Overall, they're a clear net positive, even if it might not seem like it if all you saw was their latest ANI appearance.	An easy enough target if you're out hunting for blockable editors; just be sure not to get dragged down into the mud.	Focus on your content work, and ignore all the editors trying to block you (unless they succeed, in which case it's time to bring out your sock army).	[Redacted] (As of 1 April 2024)
Start	The user is a newcomer, just dipping their toes into the weird world of Wikipedia. They mostly still think of themselves as a reader, but they've realized they can just move their draft to mainspace themselves.	They might behave a little erratically and forget to sign their posts, but just give them some time; they'll figure it out eventually (or not).	Be bold and ignore all rules! But only when you're doing something completely correctly. Otherwise: no, don't, STOP!	[Redacted] (As of 1 April 2024)
Stub	The user has been blocked and tagged for socking, reducing the length of their user page to that of a stub.	You might hear about how their friends miss them or how their enemies still hold a grudge, but they're no longer around.	Don't.	Blippers (As of 1 April 2024)
Portal	The user is for all practical purposes obsolete. They still edit occasionally to avoid an inactivity desysop, but a reader is highly unlikely to ever encounter their edits, and if they did they'd find them strange.	You'll find them musing about the fate of Esperanza and wondering where Larry Sanger went.	Turn in the tools. You had a good run. It's time.	[Redacted] (As of 1 April 2024)
Redirect	The user is constantly being confused with a different, more well-known user with a similar username.	Confusion.	Hope that the other editor is well-liked.	[Redacted] (As of 1 April 2024)

Importance scale

WikiProject Users importance scheme

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	User is extremely important, even crucial, to the encyclopedia. They're regularly cited as an example of the project's bus problem.	Not you
High	User is very important, but only within a particular WikiProject. If they were blocked, they'd have friends to throw a tantrum for them about it.	Probably not you
Mid	Everything about the user is mid. They often spend too much time writing joke pages instead of articles.	Maybe you
Low	User is not particularly notable or significant, even within their content focus area. If they retired, no one would notice.	Likely you

Contesting your rating

Some editors, particularly those assessed as draft-class, disagree with their assessment. If this is you, do not change the rating yourself. Instead, go here and share your thoughts on the general competence of the editor who assigned the rating. Doing so will validate that editor's assessment, obviating the need for it to be changed.

Templates

• {{WikiProject Users}}

Related WikiProjects

• Wikipedia:Department of Fun (parent project)