Misplaced Pages talk:Adopt-a-user

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thejadefalcon (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 25 November 2009 (→Adoption: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:57, 25 November 2009 by Thejadefalcon (talk | contribs) (→Adoption: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Inactive adoptees

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I've noticed that my adoptees have become inactive (three last edited in January 2008, and one a year ago). Given the long period of time, I'm assuming that they are not coming back, either because they got bored with Misplaced Pages and decided it wasn't for them, or I'm a bad adopter—I'm hoping not the latter.

I wondered if there are other cases of this or if some standard practice is in place. Frankly, I'm not sure if I should keep the adoptee boxes on my userpage for people I don't think will return to editing, but I worry they may pop back in think I've forgotten about them. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi Guyinblack25, i've found that if you dont think your adoptee will come back to the project, they usually won't. It won't be anything you've done that's driven them away, some people just don't find the project is for them. Previously i have had adoptees stop adopting, and i've found that the best way to deal with it is to leave a note on the adoptees talk page, stating that you are ending the adoption, but then say that if they do come back, you will happily pick up were you left off as adopter. Then you can happily remove the boxes. Hope this helps. Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi GIB! I actually don't display a userbox for each individual adoptee, I have a table (User talk:Xeno/wikiadopt/header) transcluded onto my main adoption page (User talk:Xeno/wikiadopt) and when they become inactive, I just "noinclude" them on the table so they don't get transcluded onto the main adoption page and make a note of their last edit date. Feel free to robbe anything you want from my pages. –xeno (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. (Guyinblack25 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

question

are u allowed to have more than one adopter, --Daisy404 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Likely: It is up to another adopter if they wish to adopt you aswell. In most cases one Experienced adopter is all you need. If you require another adopter consider asking a active adopter and see what they say. Regards 11:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Referral from context of WP:AN/I?

I don't know whether or not this is urgent? If this is urgent, I am responding with appropriate urgency to a well-intentioned suggestion.

The following comes from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks.

This posting was addressed to Caspian blue:

I think you are overreacting, because the fundamental problem with Tenmei is his inability to make himself understood, not civility issues. It is not my intention to mock you. The other blocks is less indicative than what I assumed when looking at your log, and as such is not really relevant to this discussion. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This posting was addressed to me:

Tenmei, I urge you to seek a Mentor. The fact that most editors find your style of discussion to be difficult to understand, as well as tending to sidetrack the discussion, is going to be a problem for you and editors around you until you substantially improve your prose. Taemyr (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd made an on-point contribution to this thread; and Taemyr's response was the following, which suggests that it was not seen as helpful or appropriate in the context.

Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project. I suggested mentorship higher up in this tread. Taemyr (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The following is the text I posted. Taemyr's reaction was not what I would have expected -- not positive or approving, to be sure. --Tenmei (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content
When two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman It seems to me that there's a commonly-used American expression which applies here -- an old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. I think it's the fight itself which is most important to Caspian blue. At best, maybe it's an adolescent attempt to do what seems to be the right thing ... but somehow the best intentions fall a little short of the mark? I don't think anyone can sort this one out. I know I can't. The more important problem at hand is that there are likely to be other similarly-motivated wiki-editors who make the prospects doubtful for any article which includes both Korean and Japanese themes. The future is especially uncertain for articles like Korean missions to Edo and Joseon Tongsinsa which rely for their ultimate success on a collaborative merging of Korean and Japanese scholarship. These articles seem already to have become another one of those Sterling examples of wiki-failure. As some of us know quite well, there are some Misplaced Pages articles which have devolved into nothing but proxy battlefields in a centuries-old set of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese. When I created the rough draft of Korean missions to Edo, I thought there was a chance that this specific subject could become a meaningful example of something else -- an illustration of something which worked out well to the advantage of everyone; but whatever progress I thought had been made was dashed when Caspian blue accused me of personal attacks and Korea-bashing. As everyone knows, this deflects attention away from working towards developing commonly-understood objectives ... and indeed, I had some reason to believe that an AfD discussion was working towards a consensus decision, but that was untimely closed merely because of the unsubstantiated allegations Caspian blue posted here. I tried to find an example of this American saying on the Internet. The following is from a televised discussion about a political compromise in the US Senate in 2005. We don't really need to understand the politics of whatever it is these two men are analyzing -- the objective was simply to find an illustration of an apt phrase used in context. JIM LEHRER: Take us through this, David. These are your folks -- the conservatives. How are the conservatives going to react to this? Is anybody going to have to pay a price, do you believe? DAVID BROOKS: I don't think they'll have to pay a price. The conservative like James Dobson are apoplectic. James Dobson wakes up apoplectic. But, you know, they wanted to fight. I'm reminded of that old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. They were geared up for this fight. But I think in a not-too-distant future people are going to see that this is a good win for those conservatives because .... Two wiki-examples of wiki-failures are Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women. I recognize that the real-world disputes about these subjects are both controversial and valid; but the talk pages provide ample evidence that for many contributors, the proxy wiki-fights are more important to the combatants that the article itself. In the example from American television offers another useful mirror in terms of a word I had to look up in the dictionary. Brooks says that "James Dobson wakes up apoplectic," meaning that he wakes up in morning highly excited, ready for a fight about what he believes in. If I've understood wiki-etiquette correctly, Brooks would be reprimanded at WP:AN/I for writing "Dobson wakes up apoplectic," but I think I can safely write that Caspian blue acts as if he were apoplectic before he clicks into a discussion about Joseon tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo; and what seems like Caspian blue's frustrated anger is only indirectly related to whatever words are to be read on the computer screen. For Caspian blue and other peers with whom there is common cause at articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women, it appears as if it is often very difficult to maintain a distinction between what infuriates them in the real world and what is construed as inflammatory, offensive or personal attacks in the wiki-context. When I nominated Joseon tongsinsa for deletion because it did not comply with WP:V, that was not an anti-Korean gesture. When Caspian blue added an online Korean encyclopedia entry as a reference source for 4 in-line citations in Joseon tongsinsa, I translated the article via Bablefish. That was not an anti-Korean gesture. The machine translation was largely unreadable, of course; but by simply highlighting the Gregorian calendar dates with a bold font, it became possible to show that there was no correlation between the alleged citations and the source. That was not an anti-Korean gesture. I mistook the ensuing silence as an indication that the real work of merging reliably sourced information had at last begun. I was even proud of myself for having stumbled through the onerous task of machine-translated Korean to English which could be read by the other AfD discussion participants. But NO -- that's not what happened. Instead, the modest momentum of constructive engagement was stalled, quashed, blocked. Instead, the consensus reality of wiki-dispute resolution focuses attention elsewhere. I predict this can only happen again and again ad nauseam as it has played out in other articles. The task at hand is difficult enough, but it explicitly becomes a Sisyphean exercise unless something is done differently. In my view, Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women are doomed to failure because each are independently re-inventing the wheel over and over again. Caspian blue has participated in both talk pages -- and I mention this only as a way of demonstrating a knowledge that both articles exist and that both illustrate talk page difficulties. In addition, I know about both these pages, and now anyone who reads these words will know as well -- but where is the wiki-mechanism which allows for a chance that participants at Talk:Korean missions to Edo can profit from the investments of time, energy, and intellectual engagement in difficult discussions on these talk pages? Other than posting here, what can be done to avoid the endless cycle of re-inventing the wheel in Korean missions to Edo and other similarly difficult articles? --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

When two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman

It seems to me that there's a commonly-used American expression which applies here -- an old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. I think it's the fight itself which is most important to Caspian blue. At best, maybe it's an adolescent attempt to do what seems to be the right thing ... but somehow the best intentions fall a little short of the mark? I don't think anyone can sort this one out. I know I can't.

The more important problem at hand is that there are likely to be other similarly-motivated wiki-editors who make the prospects doubtful for any article which includes both Korean and Japanese themes. The future is especially uncertain for articles like Korean missions to Edo and Joseon Tongsinsa which rely for their ultimate success on a collaborative merging of Korean and Japanese scholarship.

These articles seem already to have become another one of those Sterling examples of wiki-failure. As some of us know quite well, there are some Misplaced Pages articles which have devolved into nothing but proxy battlefields in a centuries-old set of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese.

When I created the rough draft of Korean missions to Edo, I thought there was a chance that this specific subject could become a meaningful example of something else -- an illustration of something which worked out well to the advantage of everyone; but whatever progress I thought had been made was dashed when Caspian blue accused me of personal attacks and Korea-bashing. As everyone knows, this deflects attention away from working towards developing commonly-understood objectives ... and indeed, I had some reason to believe that an AfD discussion was working towards a consensus decision, but that was untimely closed merely because of the unsubstantiated allegations Caspian blue posted here.

I tried to find an example of this American saying on the Internet. The following is from a televised discussion about a political compromise in the US Senate in 2005. We don't really need to understand the politics of whatever it is these two men are analyzing -- the objective was simply to find an illustration of an apt phrase used in context.

JIM LEHRER: Take us through this, David. These are your folks -- the conservatives. How are the conservatives going to react to this? Is anybody going to have to pay a price, do you believe?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't think they'll have to pay a price. The conservative like James Dobson are apoplectic. James Dobson wakes up apoplectic. But, you know, they wanted to fight. I'm reminded of that old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. They were geared up for this fight. But I think in a not-too-distant future people are going to see that this is a good win for those conservatives because ....

Two wiki-examples of wiki-failures are Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women. I recognize that the real-world disputes about these subjects are both controversial and valid; but the talk pages provide ample evidence that for many contributors, the proxy wiki-fights are more important to the combatants that the article itself.

In the example from American television offers another useful mirror in terms of a word I had to look up in the dictionary. Brooks says that "James Dobson wakes up apoplectic," meaning that he wakes up in morning highly excited, ready for a fight about what he believes in. If I've understood wiki-etiquette correctly, Brooks would be reprimanded at WP:AN/I for writing "Dobson wakes up apoplectic," but I think I can safely write that Caspian blue acts as if he were apoplectic before he clicks into a discussion about Joseon tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo; and what seems like Caspian blue's frustrated anger is only indirectly related to whatever words are to be read on the computer screen.

For Caspian blue and other peers with whom there is common cause at articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women, it appears as if it is often very difficult to maintain a distinction between what infuriates them in the real world and what is construed as inflammatory, offensive or personal attacks in the wiki-context.

When I nominated Joseon tongsinsa for deletion because it did not comply with WP:V, that was not an anti-Korean gesture.

When Caspian blue added an online Korean encyclopedia entry as a reference source for 4 in-line citations in Joseon tongsinsa, I translated the article via Bablefish. That was not an anti-Korean gesture.

The machine translation was largely unreadable, of course; but by simply highlighting the Gregorian calendar dates with a bold font, it became possible to show that there was no correlation between the alleged citations and the source. That was not an anti-Korean gesture.

I mistook the ensuing silence as an indication that the real work of merging reliably sourced information had at last begun. I was even proud of myself for having stumbled through the onerous task of machine-translated Korean to English which could be read by the other AfD discussion participants.

But NO -- that's not what happened. Instead, the modest momentum of constructive engagement was stalled, quashed, blocked. Instead, the consensus reality of wiki-dispute resolution focuses attention elsewhere. I predict this can only happen again and again ad nauseam as it has played out in other articles.

The task at hand is difficult enough, but it explicitly becomes a Sisyphean exercise unless something is done differently. In my view, Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women are doomed to failure because each are independently re-inventing the wheel over and over again.

Caspian blue has participated in both talk pages -- and I mention this only as a way of demonstrating a knowledge that both articles exist and that both illustrate talk page difficulties. In addition, I know about both these pages, and now anyone who reads these words will know as well -- but where is the wiki-mechanism which allows for a chance that participants at Talk:Korean missions to Edo can profit from the investments of time, energy, and intellectual engagement in difficult discussions on these talk pages?

Other than posting here, what can be done to avoid the endless cycle of re-inventing the wheel in Korean missions to Edo and other similarly difficult articles? --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott counsels: "You need to keep posts short. No one reads huge long posts. Try limiting yourself to a maximum of 5 sentences (normal length ones) or one short paragraph of 10 likes of text. That way people will actually read what you say." Although I want to post the following on her talk page, it is too long -- hence unhelpful, ineffective, useless.

Extended content
Theresa Knott -- I wonder if you could become a kind of "fulcrum" in ways neither of us can imagine yet? As you know, Guy describes WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks as a "festival of Stupid" and Future Perfect at Sunrise characterizes it as mere "bickering." In that context, you represent a plausible fulcrum from which to leverage an ultimately constructive outcome: Please re-visit just the second clause from a sentence which knowingly mis-states my AfD position: Caspian blue's summary of the complaint at hand: Tenmei ... also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me. For the moment, set aside the fact that each of the following explained that the only way to invite assistance from the Article Rescue Squadron was by nominating an otherwise unsourced article for deletion: Talk:Joseon tongsinsa#Merge Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge Talk:Joseon tongsinsa#Deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Needing diplomacy and finesse Just focusing on that second clause, Caspian blue slyly managed to avoid scrutiny of the Korean language source which was cited. All that was needed was changing the venue from the fully-engaged AfD discussion thread to this one where the issues could be re-framed in more superficial terms. The AfD was summarily closed by Seicer because of Caspian blue's unsupported allegations that the discussion had degenerated into personal abuse. Future Perfect at Sunrise has now merged the articles. In my view, it was only possible to get as far as we had done because there were a sufficient number of others participating in the AfD discussion. It plainly took more time to struggle with figuring out how to engage a process to resolve the WP:V problems with the rescue process than it took to locate and post a single Korean language encyclopedia entry. It took longer to translate the source than Caspian blue has invested in making a substantive contribution to article content. What was this really all about? I don't know, but I do know that this specific on-line text does not support any of the specific sentences for which it was cited. QED: From this experience, Caspian blue will have learned that this is an effective gambit. There's no arguing with its success; and as a special bonus, the exercise furthers an unfathomable anti-Japanese vendetta. This was a victory in a one-sided fight was gained with relatively little effort except for a bit of argumentative prose. The disputing itself has value because of a modest adrenalin-boost fuels a practice-session which improves Caspian blue English fluency. Who can deny that Caspian blue achieved a defined set of goals? I would have wanted to add some part of the above to the thread which is soon to be archived; but I can't see how to explain myself more succinctly than this. Why is this outcome a good one? Perhaps you may become a fulcrum at some point in a future in which Caspian blue's over-reaching comes to your attention in a dispute involving someone else? --Tenmei (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

Theresa Knott --

I wonder if you could become a kind of "fulcrum" in ways neither of us can imagine yet?

As you know, Guy describes WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks as a "festival of Stupid" and Future Perfect at Sunrise characterizes it as mere "bickering." In that context, you represent a plausible fulcrum from which to leverage an ultimately constructive outcome:

Please re-visit just the second clause from a sentence which knowingly mis-states my AfD position: Caspian blue's summary of the complaint at hand:

Tenmei ... also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me.

For the moment, set aside the fact that each of the following explained that the only way to invite assistance from the Article Rescue Squadron was by nominating an otherwise unsourced article for deletion:

Just focusing on that second clause, Caspian blue slyly managed to avoid scrutiny of the Korean language source which was cited. All that was needed was changing the venue from the fully-engaged AfD discussion thread to this one where the issues could be re-framed in more superficial terms. The AfD was summarily closed by Seicer because of Caspian blue's unsupported allegations that the discussion had degenerated into personal abuse. Future Perfect at Sunrise has now merged the articles. In my view, it was only possible to get as far as we had done because there were a sufficient number of others participating in the AfD discussion.

It plainly took more time to struggle with figuring out how to engage a process to resolve the WP:V problems with the rescue process than it took to locate and post a single Korean language encyclopedia entry. It took longer to translate the source than Caspian blue has invested in making a substantive contribution to article content. What was this really all about? I don't know, but I do know that this specific on-line text does not support any of the specific sentences for which it was cited.

QED: From this experience, Caspian blue will have learned that this is an effective gambit. There's no arguing with its success; and as a special bonus, the exercise furthers an unfathomable anti-Japanese vendetta. This was a victory in a one-sided fight was gained with relatively little effort except for a bit of argumentative prose. The disputing itself has value because of a modest adrenalin-boost fuels a practice-session which improves Caspian blue English fluency.

Who can deny that Caspian blue achieved a defined set of goals? I would have wanted to add some part of the above to the thread which is soon to be archived; but I can't see how to explain myself more succinctly than this. Why is this outcome a good one?

Perhaps you may become a fulcrum at some point in a future in which Caspian blue's over-reaching comes to your attention in a dispute involving someone else? --Tenmei (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Inactive waiting-for-adoption?

I was perusing the waiting-for-adoption category.. A large number of the users listed haven't been active on the site in months. Should they be removed? If not, should we establish an activity cutoff point? Prince of Canada 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I normally would remove the userbox if they hadnt edited in 60 days and I would leave them a note on their userpage. See Category talk:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user#Spring cleaning for a suggested boilerplate message. –xeno (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I went through several months ago and offered adoption to everyone who hadn't edited for more than a month or two (several dozen, as I recall). As I expected, none responded. I think this is a little more friendly than just removing the box, and accomplishes the same task. You're at little risk of being overwhelmed by responses, too, so this is the approach I'd recommend. And if anyone responds, bonus points! --Sopoforic (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine as long as you yourself don't plan on becoming inactive in the near or distant future. Make sure to change the boxes to adoptoffer to clear the cat =) –xeno (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I prefer xeno's approach; I don't see it as unfriendly, plus Soporific's apprach just moves them from one cat (waiting) to another (offered). Prince of Canada 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You could always combine the two, removing the userbox completely, but still offering adoption. –xeno (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean that it was unfriendly--for an inactive user, simply removing the box is fine. I meant, rather, that by offering adoption to the inactive users, you have a chance of coaxing them into editing again; something like 'encouraging' might have been a more appropriate term. Too, I don't really see them sitting in the 'offered' cat as a problem. But, by all means, do what you prefer. Xenocidic's approach is fine, too. --Sopoforic (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Doh, I should have gotten that meaning. My bad. Prince of Canada 01:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

New IRC channel

I'm currently working on a new IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-adopt, I'm seeking a bot that can monitor the C:ADOPT and I'm also seeking folk who are familiar with freenode who would be willing to OP this channel, thanks —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

I think Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters needs a serious update. Some users have retired, some which are not listed as admins are now, some users are full for adoptees, and I think the page could overall not help a newbie. I'm proposing a message sent to all listed adoptors, and asking them to update their status. If a user doesn't respond within two weeks, they will be taken off the list, and possible be put in a "Former Adoptors" category, like WP:ADCO.--LAA Fan _review 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the list does need some updating. -- RyRy (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I think you could probably ask Xenocidic to use his bot to mass notify everyone on the adoption page (I'm assuming his bot is capable of such a task) ——Possum (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

xenobot can certainly do this. does someone want to draft the message to be delivered? –xeno (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Adopt-a-user!
	We've noticed that some of the great members of Adopt-a-user haven't updated their adoption status in a while. We'd love it if you could drop by and update your info. Thanks!

- Prince of Canada 13:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

Hi there Adopt-a-user!
	We've noticed that you are in the Adopt-a-User program under Active Adopters. We are currently updating the information for adoptors. If you could, please update your status here. Thanks.

I'll give this to Xeno.--LAA Fan _review 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, perhaps we could discuss first? AaU is a friendly place, I'd prefer that we used somewhat more friendly language in our outgoing messages. Prince of Canada 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, there's no rush... alternatively rather than blasting the entire list we could just remove adopters who have not editing in 60 days and leave them a message notifying them of that. I did this a while back and you can see the message I used here: Misplaced Pages talk:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters#Spring cleaning... –xeno (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno.. I think I'd prefer to see the whole list blasted, as we probably have some people who are at <60 days but don't want to be involved anymore, so may as well ask them to clean out now. Plus it increases the chance of unaffiliated people seeing a PRETTY BLUE BOX and saying "Hey, what's that about? I want in on that!" Prince of Canada 23:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Something along the lines of... Hey there! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Something like that? –xeno (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Warm and fuzzy! Prince of Canada 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I like that version, too. BTW, shall I go and spring clean the user who haven't edited in 60 days?--LAA Fan _review 01:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Blast is done. –xeno (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha my watchlist is full of the same edit summary! XD ——Possum (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Major reaction! --Hirohisat 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

While there was some minor confusion over the phrasing (some thought that we were referring to them specifically as "60 days inactive"), overall this has been a successful initiative with many people tweaking their status. Kudos to everyone involved. –xeno (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking to becoming an adopter

Hi. I'm interested in becoming an adopter, but I wasn't sure if the 500 edits limit is for mainspace edits or total edits. Would I qualify? I haven't been blocked/warned during my stay on WP. For your convenience, a link to my edit count: . — Twinzor - Do I suck or rock? 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go for it! We can always use more active adopters. –xeno (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I've just been doing a bit of housekeeping in the Adoptees category. I've removed a few people who haven't been active in at least a month, and changed the status of a couple. 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

I needed help, so I got myself into an adoption. But that person told me that he would not be too active on the website, and suggested that I get myself a "co-adopter." And that is what I did. But that person doesn't seem to answer my inquiries. What should I do? I still need help. ] ] ] (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate adoption

We have policy against giving health related advice. That must include not giving well-meaning but unqualified psychotherapy. The sole purpose of WP:ADOPT is to help inexperienced users towards constructive contribution for the good of the encyclopedia. The following case shows these policies can fail.

A user has presented himself as darn proud to be heterosexual, seeks to edit Male rape, subscribes to a newsletter about male-male contact sport, claims to have experienced being raped by homosexuals, edits repeatedly article(s) about sexually motivated crime and claims to have been to hell. This person's contribution history is replete with instances of personal attacks, typically in the form of accusing other editors of stalking him or pursuing a certain sexual or political agenda and mixed with frequent apologies that do not always seem to reflect improved behaviour. I think it not useful here to provide diffs that would identify this user. There has been a WQA and WP/ANI focussed on him and much turbulance in his interaction with other users who will certainly recognise of whom I speak.

The above described user was adopted. As well as mentoring, the adopter is seen to act as an advocate for the adoptee. That has included deflecting questions posed to the person, telling the person to whom he need not AGF, discussing with other user(s) when and what they should ask the person, and offering to handle any problems arising between him and other editors. Adoption is equated here with extraordinary tolerance. The adopter who can no doubt point to some improvement lately in the adoptee's behaviour will recognise what I have noted. Again I don't need to identify the person here.

My purpose in this post is to point out (with the benefit of hindsight) what has gone wrong in this adoption case. A person showing unstable and obsessive behaviour should not be adopted because adoption is not a free pass for unacceptable behaviour. Nor is it intended to provide psychotherapy to a person displaying symptoms of PTSD . I don't think an adopter should adopt the role of a lawyer in whatever wikidrama the adoptee gets into.

Neither of the people I have mentioned need step forward unless they want to (and neither is likely to thank me for this). However a case like this shows that the bar should be set higher for adoptions. Ways to do that should be discussed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't see this until now. I don't recall being told this was here until it was linked to in the current AN/I report, but I apologize if a reply from me was hoped for.

As the editor's adopter, in general I agree with you. Adoption has clearly not been sufficient in this case. However, I think it has been beneficial for one major reason: as adopter, I served as a sort of "neutral intermediary", someone the editor could trust more than those editors who were obviously (though sometimes legitimately) against him. I consider myself somewhat of a friend to my adoptee, and sometimes people will only listen to the advice of their friends. So, I have tried to support him when I can, and censure him when I feel the need to. However, I feel a good adopter shouldn't be too harsh on their adoptee, even if the adoptee is way out of line. An adopter should be understanding and patient: the onus is on other editors to be harsh. I believe this because if you feel that everyone is against you, you are defenseless when you happen to be in the right, and you have no motivation to improve.

Regardless of this, I don't think I have been as lenient on my adoptee as you describe. I strongly agree, and did from the start, that an adopter should not be a shield. There is a difference between an occasional advocate and a shield. A shield protects an adoptee from all criticism, legitimate and not. An occasional advocate, which I have tried to be, protects an adoptee from unfair criticism, or otherwise assists the adoptee when they don't understand where others are violating the rules. This means that neither the adoptee or those that have a problem with the adoptee will ever be completely satisfied with the adopter. I think your view of this particular adoption may be that of a party who falls on the latter side, and it is understandable that you would feel I wikilawyered for him on some occasion when you felt he was in the wrong. However, if my assumption is correct, then I was not so much wikilawyering as expressing my actual views, views which had not previously been expressed. I may be jumping to conclusions here, though.

Regardless, I think this is supposed to be one of the functions of an adopter: an overall neutral helper. However, this is my first and still my only adoption, so I may be mistaken.

In any case, I do think adoption was insufficient in this case. The adoptee improved in some areas, but in one particular area, continued to fail to assume good faith with other editors, even despite several warnings from me and others. I don't, however, think adoption was a bad idea, or a net loss. It has helped (as most recently attested to by another editor), and I don't see how my presence has given the adoptee a "free pass" for troublesome behavior. The last AN/I on the adoptee ended with little result because no uninvolved editors would express an opinion on sanctions. I refused to mete out sanctions myself because of my involved status as the subject's adopter (which I considered a conflict of interest). As a result, I had no practical effect on the conclusion of that AN/I, and so was neither shield nor discipliner. And more recently my presence has in fact served as the opposite of a shield: in the current AN/I, I have myself endorsed a topic ban, the harsher of the two restrictions proposed. I did this because I have more fully understood that adoption has not been enough.

I suppose the main thing we agree on would be that it should be made perfectly clear that adoption cannot be used as a shield for inappropriate behavior, and the adoptee, in the end, is solely responsible for their edits. -kotra (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When a member of our family is sick we can hate the sickness while loving them no less. I am thinking here of the sort of strains that arise when there is mental sickness, such as dementia in an aged parent. I saw the civility problem that arose despite your good efforts to guide your adoptee in terms of mental symptoms. I shan't say much here about your specific adoption and adoptee because that is occupying several fora already. The subject here should be how your experience should mould the future direction of WP:ADOPT.

The goals presently stated at WP:ADOPT look similar to a Help Desk. (That was also mentioned in the Archive 4.) The main difference from that service is that the adopter agrees to help the adoptee with their FUTURE UNSPECIFIED needs. Since the adoptee will probably see this because of the same link that brought it to your attention Kotra, I acknowledge that he dislikes use of them/their as singular pronouns, but they have entered usage as a way of keeping neutral about gender without constructing "him/her his/hers". We live in sensitive times, right? :-)

Patience and leniency are human virtues that redeem in the way Shakespeare expressed better than I am able, see picture. You have them in abundance Kotra and please don't let recent rocky experience change that! However they are not panaceas. The value of experience is to teach better ways of doing things next time around.

I suggest in hindsight that it is better NOT to welcome an adoptee with such words as "come to me anytime you have...a dispute with another user that could use mediation" or "I can also be an advocate for you.." I hope not to lose our mutual respect by further suggesting that your eagerness to be involved with an adoptee (himself already in some confrontation) did give him an EXPECTATION of some kind of shield from the Misplaced Pages milieu. Is it possible that the adoptee responded more to that expectation than to the seriousness of the advice you gave?

If I ever adopt a newbie as you bravely tried, I believe I should "go the extra mile" in giving help, while actually being STRICTER than most in not tolerating ANY level of incivility. See . Adoption must remain a privilege that is conditional. (Joke: I could always send my obdurate cases to you!)

Thank you Kotra for stepping forward and reading this. When the dust settles on your first adoption it will be Misplaced Pages's gain if you choose to adopt anew. Good luck with that! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the kind words. I think we generally agree, so I'll just briefly go over the couple details we don't agree on, and then propose a change to the wording at WP:ADOPT that reflects our agreement.

Your quoting is a bit misleading out of context. I said he could come to me for mediation (not protection), and that I could advocate for him "if being unfairly accused or harassed", continuing with "but don't assume I'll always be an ally: if you do something wrong I'll let you know". I think this clearly states I will not be a shield for him, and if he misinterpreted that (which, judging by his agreement, he didn't), that was not my doing. I never intentionally communicated to him that I would be a shield, and if he somehow thought that originally, he soon was disavowed of it once I began complaining about his incivil edits.

I could have harped on him every time he did not assume good faith, yes. Instead, there were a couple instances when I did not because either he had already been criticized enough by other editors for it (I don't like to "pile on"), or I simply was not around. I do not afford a lot of time to Misplaced Pages, and there have been points where the adoption has used up nearly all of my allotted Misplaced Pages time (now, for instance).

Regardless. I think my adoption may have been closer to a mentorship than adoption is usually intended to be. I found this necessary due to the actions of the adoptee, and I hope that wasn't out of line for me to take it in that direction. But I think we can agree that neither adoption nor mentorship is a shield. I have put my proposal below in a sub-section so other editors will see it more readily. -kotra (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition

On Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area, I propose adding under "Adoption is not:" the following bullet:

A shield. Adoptees remain solely responsible for their behavior.

I think this would help adoptees (and adopters who read the adoptee's area) from getting the wrong idea about the adopt-a-user system. Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion Redact the names of the adoptee and adopter. While the details have been shared on wikipedia, theres no reason to attribute them to a particular user again. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is no reason to show the adoptee's identity here. (Editing the adoptee's name to "Mr/Mrs X", if that is what you suggest, would just create more focus on the person.) However a point of this thread is that Kotra is an adopter with notable experience to offer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I intentionally never mentioned the adoptee by name. As for the adopter, how do you propose my name be redacted? I suppose I could de-sign my posts here, but I think that would be discouraged. -kotra (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Adoptee's name redacted from text as per Cuddlyable3's agreement. -kotra (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I approve. Now rather than trying to make Kotra anonymous (impractical), we must encourage Kotra to take on lots more adoptees because then no one will ever be sure which adoption to trace to him. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Very well, I'll add {{Adopter|Cuddlyable3}} to my userpage at once! -kotra (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no objection, I went ahead and made the change. -kotra (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Terminating adoption

Today (25 January 2009) the adopter and adoptee each posted on the adoptee's page that neither trusts the other. The adoption should be declared terminated. What happens in the future will depend on behavior of the ex-adoptee.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have come very close to terminating it at this point, but I decided to wait because the adoptee is currently under a block, and is probably under enough stress already. I would like to see if another infraction occurs; if one does, I will terminate it then as the adoption would then have been proven definitively to not be helping. But if the community wishes the adoption to be terminated now, I'll do that. -kotra (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the topic ban on this adoptee seems to "lock in" his adopter by name for as long as the ban lasts.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. I'd assume that the adoption could still be terminated, it just would have to be changed from "...he is asked to first check the edit with his adopter User:kotra or any administrator" to "...he is asked to first check the edit with any administrator". -kotra (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Adopter not yet ready?

Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs) is the current adopter of Kalajan (talk · contribs). I'm very worried about Steelerfan's adoption procedure. He has made many errors and I don't believe he is ready to begin adoption. I went to him, but my attempt at reasoning with him have been removed, as well as an e-mail reply ignored (he sent me an e-mail asking about his procedure, I gave him tips, he didn't want to follow them). Many things I've seen during the adoption are also very troubling. Here, he is teaching his adoptee that it is fine to remove comments from other users talk pages. Here and Here, he is encouraging getting a nice userpage and signature already, instead of advising him to edit articles. I asked Steelerfan via e-mail to take care of this and let him know that Kalajan is spending to much time obsessing over userpages and signatures (WP:MYSPACE). Since that thread, Kalajan has made too many edits to his userpage. I basically don't believe Steelerfan was ready to adopt, and I think the adoption of Kalajan should be taken over by another user. Thoughts? aye matthew ✡ 21:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

iMatthew, please stop watching Steelerfan-94's edits, the past week or so, I've noticed you constantly looking at his edits. Please stop, as he probably thinks it's bordering WP:STALK. Let Steelerfan-94 get on with it, and give him breathing space - everywhere he goes, he has you following him. You've stated here that you won't stop watching his edits. Please, stop. D.M.N. (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been concerned about his edits while he is adopting this new user. Editing poorly and teaching users the wrong thing isn't good, and I've been trying to get Steelerfan back on track. His adoptee watching every move he makes, and is supposed to learn from him. aye matthew ✡ 21:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not advocate userspace edits like he's done. I've talked to him about it via Email and he's gonna work on it. I could paste copy's of it. I looked at your adoption page, and I'm going to work on it. How am I "encouraging" him to have a nice userpage and signature? I said no to the userpage, and I created him a signature not knowing he would know how to edit it and do so often. I'm ready to adopt, I don't want you hovering over me though, This is a new experience for me and Kalajan, It wouldn't be right to just have someone else do it once we've already started working together. Again, I have talked to him about it I just don't do it in public so everybody doesn't have to see it, or comment on it. And Matt, please don't take out your personal feelings about me, on kalajan and all the other user's who have to see this. SteelersFan-9 4 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal feelings towards you are that you are a good editor, but like everyone on Misplaced Pages, have flaws -- which may prevent you from handling the adoption correctly. I guess we'll just have to see how the rest of it plays out. aye matthew ✡ 22:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, I don't want to get into it but I'm going through a family sickness and death, that may really be whats making me a little.....IDK please over look it as it's only temporary. Just like when I tried to retire a couple months ago. SteelersFan-9 4 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sorry to hear about it. aye matthew ✡ 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Confidential help

An adoptee's behaviour recently lead to ANIs that drained the time and attentions of many editors, including myself. That might have been avoided if sufficiently firm advice had been given earlier. Kotra mentioned an adopter's wish not to "pile on" criticism where an adoptee is in a dispute, in order not to inflame the situation by being seen as taking either side. That liability is avoidable if adopter and adoptee can communicate confidentially. Talk pages are not confidential; many issues get resolved on them but not all, and their history is an obvious place to look whenever a dispute ignites. E-mail offers confidential help. I propose changing the way adoption works as follows.

To be adopted an editor must confirm via e-mail that their adopter can communicate with them using the return address provided, as long as the adoption lasts.

Note: Adoption is a privilege not a right. An adopter who finds that the adoptee does not pay attention to e-mails has grounds to stop the adoption, with no public repurcussion. Thoughts? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm categorically opposed to forcing users to add an email address before they can be adopted. –xeno (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with xeno. Something along the lines of "it is suggested that both adopter and adoptee exchange email addresses to facilitate offwiki communication and discussion of sensitive matters" would be fine, but requiring? No. //roux 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, are you happy with a situation arising where an adoptee needs a serious warning and/or a confidential personal message, and the adopter has no options but to "go public" or wait for others to raise WQA / ANI / DR etc. ? I think we have just been through that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

roux's suggestion is an appropriate middle ground imo. –xeno (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal experience was certainly made more difficult by being completely public, but even if my adoptee had enabled email, I would have opted not to use it in the interest of transparency. It's my own idealistic belief that public-only discussion is almost always preferable to private communication, though it is certainly harder to do tactfully. I think roux's suggestion is good: encourage both parties to enable email in their preferences, but not require it. -kotra (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That is good enough for me too.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. I'm looking for a place to put roux's text ("it is suggested that both adopter and adoptee exchange email addresses to facilitate offwiki communication and discussion of sensitive matters"), but I'm not finding any place that seems appropriate. If anyone else knows where to put it, please do! -kotra (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The project page has 3 boxes. I suggest boldly adding a 4th box with the heading "How adoption works". Inside the box goes roux's text, plus "Adoption lasts as long as the adopter and adoptee want to continue, so you can stop any time if you feel you've learned enough, or you'd like to take a break." (moved from Is adoption for me?). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adopting

After a conversation with inexperienced user BillGatesRox he has convinved me to adopt him. I have been blocked recently (that mistake has been my sole mistake - I had been trying to edge away from it for a long time, but things caught up with me, anyways), and that would mean that I do not qualify as an adopter. I do have a firm knowledge of wikipedia policy, features, the community and all the essentials, and I am 200% confident I could be a good adopter, so I want to ignore this rule. I am posting this here just in case another editor objects. Thanks, Inferno, Lord of Penguins 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I object. I do not believe you have a firm enough grasp of wiki policy or norms to adopt new users. You have been here for two months, have been blocked for socking within that time, and have participated relatively little in projectspace. I suggest you politely decline the adoption request and send the user to someone with more experience. //roux 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you head read any of the summary I posted (it's in this archive if you are interested), you would see I have been here since May 2007, when the shared accound User:Chukonu xbow was created. Inferno was created when the sharing ceased. (Other than that one slip up, my time here has been clean, and all my other edits I believe show a clear grasp on policy) Also, the user in question is not interested in writing, rather they are interested in other tasks, which is why I thought I would be suitible for the task. However, despite my objections, I do respect you and your opinion, and as such I will decline adoption, and I will refer them to this wikiproject. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Without going into details, I do think you would be a good help to this user as their adopter, but I think other editors may be better. So if you want, it's certainly just fine to offer friendly advice and informal mentorship to them, even if you're not officially their adopter. -kotra (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me

I was wondering if someone could adopt me. Thanks, Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 08:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Cheers. Imperat§ r 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Justify

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Could someone justify the continued existence of this project showing specific positive actions that have come from an adoption? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's certainly causing no harm, which is all that's needed. //roux 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Primarily, please assume good faith. In your edit summary, you accuse me of a disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. You should consider that disrupting wikipedia to prove a point requires disruption. Asking a simple question is not disruption.

Secondly, I disagree. If the only justification for this project is that it does no harm, there is no justification for this project. Hipocrite (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith is perfectly fine when bad faith has been demonstrated by your massively loaded question. Here's a question of my own: is this project impinging upon your editing of the project? If not, then kindly allow us to do what we do that we feel improves the project and we will accord you the same respect. //roux 01:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Hipocrite (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This would have been appropriate to have brought up from the beginning. How has the adopt-a-user program detracted from your editing? -kotra (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing adoptors and adoptees (via "What Links Here" on the templates), I have found adoptors pushing disruptive-POV/COI for their adoptees on three seperate occasions - I began my research because of a fourth occasion, and did not find any really positive interactions. I didn't want to predjudge the program so I was hopeful that someone (see below) would show me this was not a universal problem. Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above commentators, but if you insist, you can view the interactions between myself and a few of my past adoptees here: User talk:Xeno/wikiadopt. –xeno (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. What is it you do differently from the vast majority of participants in this project that makes your adoptees more mainstream wikipedia contributors and less myspacey worthlessness or disruptive COI/POV pushers? Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you should just review the histories and you can see my style. –xeno (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We should treat Hipocrite's question with assumption of good faith. Banter is a poor response. It is never too late or inappropriate to review what keeps this project going. It can be difficult to specify resulting positive actions because of (i) the benefit to adoptees includes helping them avoid negative actions, and (ii) confidentiality. I don't think we want a Star Adoptee of the Month type of focus. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how a diff or on-wiki link would benefit from confidentiality. I would love to see some adopters telling their adoptees that they can't push their POV/COI somewhere. Do you have some examples of that? Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about three very specific problems, obviously, and making the mistake of extrapolating them to the whole project. If there is an actual problem, bring it to our attention so that it may be dealt with. Showing up here with guns blazing saying "YOU NEED TO JUSTIFY WHAT YOU DO" is hardly a way to get anything you want, and is indeed guaranteed to piss everyone off. Which is precisely why I said this was pointy. //roux 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was trying to figure out if the problem was widespread. I don't recall typing in all caps, and if you are viewing what I wrote as that, perhaps the problem is with you, not with me. I don't need your assistance in dealing with individual problem users. This is now the second time you have accused me of disrupting Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you should take a break? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(out) No, I'm saying that you're trying to extrapolate a much larger point from a couple of isolated incidents. Had you come here and said "I have run into this problem, how does the project address it?" you would have found a much friendlier response. Instead you showed up demanding that we justify the project to you. Your inability to see the difference between the two approaches is your problem, not mine, and if memory serves I have seen you at RFAR doing much the same thing. If you have a problem with specific adopter/adoptee pairings and what is going on with them, by all means bring it to our attention. If, however, you are complaining about the project in general and demanding we justify its existence to you, you're not going to meet with much cooperation. Do try and keep up. //roux 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you adopt people? Hipocrite (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Used to, do not any longer, still take an interest in this project. That's all irrelevant, of course, and a cute little distraction away from your ridiculous demands. What you did is akin to someone saying to the entire Misplaced Pages community "You guys get vandalism sometimes! Justify this project immediately!" So here's an idea: how about you apologise for making totally unreasonable demands, and for pretending that you weren't? //roux 04:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I find the person who adopted me to be very good and while I definitely assume good faith, I think justify is too strong a word. A friendler way of phrasing would have been more appropriate. For example 'May I know what benefits the program have as I personally do not find it beneficial when I was adopted?' Syjytg (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish to clarify that I am not "pissed" at all by Hipocrite's question. It is pot calling kettle black to chide Hipocrite for not justifying his question. It is the question that is relevant to address, not some negative or accusatory motive that we might imagine might lie behind it. Methinks Roux doth protest too much.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no. This has nothing to do with protesting o'ermuch, and everything to do with a nasty, snide, accusatory and antagonistic question being asked. If he had confined himself to specifics, fine. Instead he decided to indict the whole project based on a couple of isolated instances, and then disigenuously feigned surprise when he didn't get particularly nice responses. I have approximately zero time for dishonesty. //roux 13:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

By "(ii) confidentiality" above I did not mean secrecy. I meant that it is preferable not to connect specific events during an adoption with named adoptees on this page. This caution affects any actions we describe here.81.191.82.98 (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Hipocrite has received a couple answers now, so let's refrain from arguing about the question. I suggest we all move on to less drama-inducing topics and tasks. -kotra (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

err last time someone commented was 5 days ago, why bother making an arbitrary break? hehe. –xeno (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Don't mind me, I'm just filling the Wikimedia servers with useless bytes. -kotra (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Adopter has retired

My adopter has retired from wikipedia (and this appears to be "for reals"), and I'm just wondering: what do I do now? I don't need a new foster-pedian (I've been around a comparatively long time), yet I never got a chance to "Graduate". Should I merely remove the userbox, terminating the adoption, or leave it in situ? Fribbler (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

sure, go ahead. I dub thee Graduate of the AAU program =) –xeno (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

<Fribbler throws his mortar board aloft>. Fribbler (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New adopter

I'm thinking of taking on adoptees. I already have one or two who have kind of unofficialy adopted themselves, but this is not through any kind of programme. I am thinking along the lines of a structured programme with specific tasks for the adoptees, but not so formal as "you must do this task before moving to the next stage". What do you think? Is anyone else doing anything like this? SpinningSpark 15:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it's less fun to edit Misplaced Pages if I'm given tasks, even if they're not mandatory. However, if that's what both you and the adoptee want to do, go for it (as long as you make it clear, before the adoption is entered into, that they're free to instead choose an adopter that doesn't give tasks). -kotra (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Me, I don't mind the task thingee. To me that sounds like your trying to give tasks so they get a bit of editing at everything to get the general idea. Sounds pretty good. I'm looking for an adopter. Mhera (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please

I was wondering if anyone would consider adopting me Greenman2020 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(User is now adopted by User:ZooFari) -kotra (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption clogged/useless

Is anyone actively maintaining this Wikiproject? Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption is useless. I just rmvd perhaps 10 or so Adoptoffers, most of which were on the pages of users who hadn't made contribs in over 2 years... and I barely scratched the surface. There are over 500 more such templates floating around. This category is not useful for any practical purpose, other than for the purpose of saying "We have a category". It needs either some deadly serious maintenance, or to be deleted... Ling.Nut 06:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That category exists so that Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user is clean and navigable for adopters, who want to offer adoption first to those who haven't been offered any. The only other option would be to remove the userbox on the adoptee's userpage, as you've done, but that could be problematic; they may actually still be waiting for a different adopter (or it could be some other reason entirely). So I think you should probably hold off on removing the adoption request userboxes from people's user pages. While it's somewhat safe to assume those you removed were inactive users who don't care about adoption anymore, the userboxes existing there aren't harming anything as long as this category exists.

On the other hand, it may be helpful to have a third tier of Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption twice or more or Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption (stale) (for adoption offers that are over a couple months old, for example). Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to easily have a bot automate it, and manually looking through each would be an incredible time sink (as you have found). -kotra (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the adoptoffer template needs to be modified to auto-add a date of placement, so that addressing this issue going forward would be fairly easy.

Second, you say this category is harmless, and for the most part it actually is. In some sense it is slightly harmful: those who are searching for slightly stale offers (three weeks? a month?) to see if an adoptee wants a new offer find it impossible to wade through the dense bog of truly ancient adoptoffers to find a relatively fresh one.

Therefore, in addition to being mostly harmless, this category is also unusable for any practical ends. It's a garbage dump, actually.

Can bots read your contribs and check the date? That would be the easiest way to go forward from he present position, if possible. Templates with contribs older than (say) six months could be bot-rmvd. If not, then the only way to go would be to tag a date on all 500+ of those templates, place a suggestion on the relevant talk for the user to rmv the template (unless there is reason to keep it), then wait 6 months and start rmving the ones that were ignored. Or something. Ling.Nut 07:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. The old adoption requests in this category are, like Earth, mostly harmless (so they're not entirely harmless, like I implied). I still don't think removing adoption userboxes from people's userpages without their consent is the answer, though. I don't think bots can feasibly check the user's contributions, otherwise your idea might be good. Here's another idea: add a required date field to the {{adoptoffer}} template like you suggest, and then categorize them by month: Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption in May 2009, Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption in June 2009, etc. It wouldn't work for ones offered before now, but it would be a solution for the future. Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE HELP?

I AM LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO ADOPT ME PAWZ3EMPLOYEES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawz3employees (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What is it you want to do at Misplaced Pages? Before I offer you adoption, I have to say I have some serious concerns about what is going on at your user page, and even your user name. SpinningSpark 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi spinningspark I am happy that you want to help me as for my user page I was only trying to follow what I read in sandbox. And besides that, hence the reason I asked for help, it is because I have no idea what to do. You asked what i wanted to do I just wanted to post an article,what is wrong with my username? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawz3employees (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on users talk page. SpinningSpark 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

I believe that Adopt-a-User is a really good asset for setting new users on the right track. I think we really need to get more users to get involved. With more adopters we can educate more new adoptees in the ways of wikipedia. Is there some sort invitation template that can be passed around to get more people involved? Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 15:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't, then make one. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't hurt to have more adopters, but I don't really think it's a distinct need. Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user rarely has much of a backlog. It's not so much a lack of adopters as a lack of adoptees. -kotra (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Then lets make two templates; one for possible adopters and another for future adoptees. Perhaps there could even be a bot programmed to deliver these templates to prospective participants? Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That could work, but I think it depends on what the prospective participants criteria is. I can't think of what criteria a bot would look at other than newness of the account. But if the template is given to all new users, for some of them it will inevitably seem condescending to suggest they may want to be "adopted", since in the real world, adoptees are usually infants or children. If I were a respected law professor, for example, I would find it unprofessional and maybe a little insulting to have some random person offer to "adopt" me, or even to point me to Adopt-a-User. But if a bot can detect criteria where only editors likely to be interested in adoption will be notified, I'm all for it. -kotra (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject User Rehab

WikiProject User Rehab, basically adoption for blocked, or nearly blocked users, has been proposed for deletion. We are going to try to save it, as it is a brand new project that hasn't had a fair chance. If it is deleted it has been suggested that we merge, or become a task force for adopt a user. Woud you (the general public of AAU) be open to this sort of merge in the event that our project is deleted?Drew Smith What I've done 02:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems closer to mentorship, not adoption. Adoption is not for rehabilitating disruptive editors, it's for assisting inexperienced editors. There is some crossover, but I think it's probably too different for it to be a comfortable taskforce merge. Besides the feasibility, personally I'm a bit apprehensive about the idea of a wikiproject offering mentorship to blocked/nearly blocked editors. -kotra (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested that it might be taskforcified here... surprising there is no WikiProject Mentorship...! It would definitely be a better fit. –xeno 18:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It was my belief that adoption is all about helping new user and I quote "We hope that this program will be able to inform new users about the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages and steer them away from making less-than-constructive edits or misplaced test edits." If that doesn't mean helping rogue users to conform, then what does it mean? Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding, it means steering new users away from becoming rogue users. When a user is already rogue, the situation is much more delicate, and I don't trust any random editor (including myself) to be able to handle that well; I believe this is why mentors usually are very experienced, dispute resolution-savvy editors chosen by the community, not merely anyone with over 500 edits and no blocks/vandalism for 3 months, as with adoption. -kotra (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean but most of the adopters that I know are very experienced users. However Drew mentioned this being a task-force for this project. It could be and we could even implicate further requirements, such as no blocks, 3000 edits to include 1500 mainspace edit or whatever people think would be appropriate. Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I still am skeptical of the idea of a wikiproject or taskforce for this sort of thing (personally I think it's best left to the blocking admins and community discussion in the dispute resolution areas), but what you suggest could certainly be set up on a trial basis at the very least. I'm not particularly active in Adopt-a-User, though, so it would be best if we could get more voices. -kotra (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall we put it to a vote? Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should bother doing anything until the MFD closes. –xeno 19:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. I've put the proposition of moving here onto the AFD page. Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A Problem

There are too many adopters and not enough users adoptable. Many people get 5 adoptions, while people like me gt none! Programmer13 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should put something about adoption on welcome templates? Its an Idea. Programmer13 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In a number of welcome templates there is a link to the Adopt-a-User program. However, I don't know how many people actually look at their welcome templates. The {{helpme}} template is very prominent in most of the welcome templates, so perhaps we could make the {{adoptme}} template more prominent.

It could go something like this:

Add {{helpme}} to your talk page if you have a specific question or add {{adoptme}} if you want more guidance with your editing.

Not sure if anyone wants to add this, or something similar, to the main welcome template. I agree with Programmer13 that we should do something like this. Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 13:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have created a welcome template that has the added extra of encoraging uers to sign up for adoption. It can be seen here. Feel free to edit it if it doesn't seem right. Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please test my NICE interface modification

Hey folks, I've been working on a tool with some of my lab-mates that I think mentors might be interested in. It makes a minor modification to the Misplaced Pages:UNDO interface that is intended to make communication between editors better when a revert is necessary. We are trying to do a proper study of it to see if it actually helps or not. If you would be willing to give it a try, you can find more information here.

If you have questions, suggestions or comments, please feel free to contact me. --EpochFail 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Accepting adoption

Someone has offered to adpot me (yay!) but I do not know how to make the relevent edit myself to my own talk page in-order to accept the adoption offer. Please help?!!

p.s: I'd like to self-edit my talk page to accept the adoption instead of someone else editing it for me - despite the fact that I do appreciate the help of someone editing it for me, it just feels right if I do it myself (since I need to learn anyway).

Many Thanks,

TXC (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To change the template, edit the part of your user page that says {{adoptoffer|adopter's name}} to say {{adoptee|adopter's name}}. You should also reply to their message on your talk page and, since it's been several months, make a post on their talk page to see if they're still interested. If you have anymore questions, ask them here or on my talk page. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to quickly express my gratitude for your kind help and extremely speedy reply too! Much appreciated, TXC (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I still be adopted?

Even though I've been on for six months, could I still be adopted?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can, but why do you feel you need it? SpinningSpark 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know about as much as a chicken when it comes to editing.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. SpinningSpark 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Been on Misplaced Pages for more than two years.....NEED a mentor

OK....I need someone to adopt a rather old orphan. I am having a difficult time understanding how to deal with certain situations. Even without edit warring and reverting, or attempting to work in good faith, or attempting real compromise, sometimes that is not enough. Is it knowing when to quit? Knowing that fine line between ignoring a rule and following a policy. Communicating better? Editing is not a problem. Researching and citing sources is only a problem when one similar article gets a reference shot down as unreliable and when you see the same reference being used on a similar article and raise the issue it becomes a fight. I need a very patient, very experienced editor, who is willing to take time to try and understand what I am experiencing and will be willing to help out with inquiries about situations and how to best handle it (not how to win an argument, or dispute, but actually how to handle it in a proper, healthy, and productive way). I need assistance in understanding when to just shut up and when to go full barrel (if at all) and when to step back.

I am not an aggressive editor, but have found myself in a number of situations within the last few weeks that I am concerned with. I am extremely concerned that my ability to edit is effected by these latest situations and a civil and kind hand would go much farther than a bashing. So I come here for help. Please.

--Amadscientist (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Patient, experienced, almost always on Misplaced Pages, and very humble are words I would use to describe myself. I would be quite happy to work with you, if you like. You may have encountered my sig over at Carmel-by-the-Sea. Nice little town.

If you want, leave a message on my talk page and we can hammer out the details. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me

I've already talked to two people and they haven't answered yet. So if none answer by tomorrow, or say no, I'd like at least one person who is willing to help. I like horses and my first article is Namib Desert Horse. Well there I've had a lot of help. By Dana Boomer and Montantbw. Please leave message on talk page, telling your system or program, and saying your interests and favorite articles. (Your favs of the ones you have made) Mhera (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Adopting Adoptee

I am currently in an adoption program which I am almost finished with, but would like to adopt a new user. I asked my adopter, but they are taking a rather long Wikibreak. I am on every day and can almost always reply within the span of a day. I would think that, since I'm an adoptee myself, that I would only adopt a limited number of users at first, which is fine. I think that I could really help new users! I'm just curious whether or not the public thinks I'm ready. Marx01 04:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be fine. –xeno 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer (talk)

I need some help here. I have been blocked on three times, more than any other user on there, all for intimidation. I'm very experienced with the formatting and all that malarkey, but my personality is getting in the way, and I was wondering if this process would help that.--Launchballer (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This process can only help with your activity on Misplaced Pages, not other projects like Sonic News Network (for that, you might try talking to the admins that blocked you there, or other experienced editors in good standing there). But if you feel like you could use some guidance on how to deal with other Misplaced Pages editors, then Adopt-a-User could help. You might try the instructions under the "Joining" section on Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User; I'd offer to adopt you myself, but I don't feel ready to take on that sort of adoption right now, sorry. Hope this helps! -kotra (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No problem...--Launchballer (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Adopt ME?

i need the guidanese and support so one day i can be a admim and would you rate my userpage? Big Padres Dude 03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I need to be adopted

please adopt me leave a message on my talk page! Mustang 23:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I need to be Adopted

I need incite on the rules of Misplaced Pages. InkHeart♥ 13:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding characteristics of new Wikipedians

Hi, I've posted some questions regarding new Misplaced Pages users on the talk page of the Welcoming Committee. If you have the time to help us out, please go have a look, much appreciated! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Want to be an adopter

Hello, I am a editor on Misplaced Pages, and I want to become an Adopter. The one criteria I don't meet is the 500 edits. I would like to know if people who are adopters would like me on the team. Please let me know. --MWOAP (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to be hasty. You're quite short of the edit count and a large portion of the edits you have are to your user page. Having a wide range of experience is beneficial to adopting; it's difficult to guide new users on, say, image policy or dispute resolution when you have not participated in these areas of Misplaced Pages. It's not impossible, but it's much harder. I would say, come back in a few months when you have more experience under your belt. --Danger (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

I've just signed up to become an adopter. On average, how many people tend to request adoption a month? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 17:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories: