Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User/Criteria/Discussion for exact rules

message: Here are the obvious decisions that have come out of the process below, no need to vote is you agree, comment below if you oppose:
::*Adopters should be available often to help their adoptee(s).
::*Adopters should not have any recent blocks or too many vandal warnings. (need to decide on length of time/number)
::*Adopters should not be current adoptees.
::*Adopters do not have to be members of Esperanza, Concordia, or Kindness Campaign.
::*Adopters should have a minimum number of edits (need to decide on number and if location important)
::*Adoptees only need to have one Adopter (though they can have more) 
=== notes ===
#NOTE: If you joined this program before these guidelines were instituted, you do not have to meet these requirements. 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether these Criteria are guidelines or rules?
Comments:
Think they should be guidelines - because it will be impossible to enforce rules. If we notice someone who is adopting who is not appropriate (i.e. does not meets guidelines) we can inform their adoptees on the situation and suggest they ask for another or co-adopter. Lethaniol 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  —¡Randfan! 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the note because I think it is important.  We should say "However, a note of suggestion will be left on the Adoptees talk page if their Adopter seems unfit for the role or if things get out of hand" or something like that....  —¡Randfan! 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisions 

message: #NOTE: If you joined this program before these guidelines were instituted, you do not have to meet these requirements. 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notes 

message: :Whether these Criteria are guidelines or rules?
Comments:
Think they should be guidelines - because it will be impossible to enforce rules. If we notice someone who is adopting who is not appropriate (i.e. does not meets guidelines) we can inform their adoptees on the situation and suggest they ask for another or co-adopter. Lethaniol 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  —¡Randfan! 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the note because I think it is important.  We should say "However, a note of suggestion will be left on the Adoptees talk page if their Adopter seems unfit for the role or if things get out of hand" or something like that....  —¡Randfan! 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other decisions required on 

message: Must always be ready to help out their adoptee. 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help 

message: Redundant, yet important. Randfan 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Approve:
#Randfan
#Daniel Olsen 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: Have at least 50 main edits, 30 main talk page edits, and 5 userpage edits since you have joined the KC or Esperanza (what ever one you joined last)
Have been a member of Esperanza and the KC for at least two weeks. 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe we can lessen the numbers? Randfan 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest making this a part of Esperanza, but both E@ and KC is a bit too much. I don't see why you need to have been a member for so long. I propose that instead, being a member of Esperanza for one week is enough.
I think forget the talk page edits, however we should have a minimum mainspace edits- afterall, you do need an experienced editor to adopt in this program. Also, if the project becomes part of Esperanza, then fine, but not KC, but really, it doesn't really matter whether the adopter is a part of this program or not. And also, I think it should be TOTAL number of edits, not since when you joined E@ or KC. CattleGirl  talk | e@ |  review me! 08:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "recommending that they join"?  —¡Randfan! 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits and organizations to join 

message: I don't know if this exact thing should be used but I think it is important. Randfan 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe we can lessen the numbers? Randfan 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest making this a part of Esperanza, but both E@ and KC is a bit too much. I don't see why you need to have been a member for so long. I propose that instead, being a member of Esperanza for one week is enough.
I think forget the talk page edits, however we should have a minimum mainspace edits- afterall, you do need an experienced editor to adopt in this program. Also, if the project becomes part of Esperanza, then fine, but not KC, but really, it doesn't really matter whether the adopter is a part of this program or not. And also, I think it should be TOTAL number of edits, not since when you joined E@ or KC. CattleGirl  talk | e@ |  review me! 08:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "recommending that they join"?  —¡Randfan! 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Approve:
#
Oppose:
#Oppose, limits helpers, encourages editcountitis Daniel Olsen 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: Have not been blocked in the last month or Have not been blocked in the last 3 months. 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about four? Randfan 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about one month? One month is usually ample time to recuperate from doing something stupid, there's no need to dwell on past mistakes. This isn't RfA. ~ Flameviper 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe 45 days?  —¡Randfan! 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  block 

message: I think it should be somewhere from 3 to 5 months, four probably. Randfan 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  length of time 

message: We need this, or something like it. Randfan 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about four? Randfan 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about one month? One month is usually ample time to recuperate from doing something stupid, there's no need to dwell on past mistakes. This isn't RfA. ~ Flameviper 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe 45 days?  —¡Randfan! 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Approve:
#Randfan
#Daniel Olsen 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: Cannot have had more than two edits counted as vandalism in the last five/three months. 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between several sparse outbreaks of goofiness and total wikidebauchery, we need only discourage impulsivity. Punish it perhaps, but blocks take care of that. The "block" section covers this material amply; if it was enough to warrant such measures, then a block would have surely been recieved. ~ Flameviper 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably a guideline.  Also, maybe it should be AntiVandalBot to asses this.  Blocks do cover it.  —¡Randfan! 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandal 

message: I think it should be somewhere from 3 to 5 months, four probably. Randfan 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  length of time 

message: We need this, or something like it. Randfan 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between several sparse outbreaks of goofiness and total wikidebauchery, we need only discourage impulsivity. Punish it perhaps, but blocks take care of that. The "block" section covers this material amply; if it was enough to warrant such measures, then a block would have surely been recieved. ~ Flameviper 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably a guideline.  Also, maybe it should be AntiVandalBot to asses this.  Blocks do cover it.  —¡Randfan! 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Approve:
#Randfan
#Daniel Olsen 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: Must have terminated the "adoptee" title for at least two weeks before becoming an adopter and must also not have been accused of vandalism, must not have been blocked, and must be part of Concordia (for at least one week) in this time period.  If the block has expired for you and you have been forgiven for any vandalism officially (and with a record of it) than a vote can be made between the members of this orginazation in which a majority vote will decide (and in this vote the leaders must decide how long the cause of this vote will last, in case it is a draw, majority undecided, or if the case is lost to the one wishing to join). 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay! Randfan 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonadoptee 

message: This is important to make sure they are ready for this.  I don't know if this exact example should be used, though... Randfan
How about just not being an adoptee? Daniel Olsen 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay! Randfan 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Approve:
#~ Flameviper 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: It is preferred that a co-adopter for every one adoptee is instituted in the relationship and the following guidelines are followed.  If you have three adoptees or more that you are helping you must have at least have two other adopters for every adoptee, one of which doesn't have more than two adoptees.  Can only have a total six adoptees. 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe as a guideline....(?) Randfan 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  co-adopter 

message: (See criteria discussions for more info.)
This, not only gives the adoptee multiple people to learn from, but also allows the adoptee to have help if one adopter is currently busy, not on, blocked, or otherwise incompacitated. Exact wording needs help. Randfan 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe as a guideline....(?) Randfan 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion 

message: Approve:
#
Oppose:
#Strong oppose, unnecesary and would slow things down. Daniel Olsen 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  decision? 

message: #NOTE: If you joined this program before these rules were instituted, you do not have to meet these requirements. 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about we need three approvals for one oppose to pass each note? Randfan 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and an additional two approves for every indecisive or otherwise, though this will only be for the notes, I think...? Randfan 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  note(s) 

message: The first one (for more may come later) is too important to give up.  No discussion. Randfan 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about we need three approvals for one oppose to pass each note? Randfan 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and an additional two approves for every indecisive or otherwise, though this will only be for the notes, I think...? Randfan 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion 

message: ==== decision for note #1 ====
Support:
#—¡Randfan! 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  decisions? 

message: Support:
#—¡Randfan! 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  decision for note #1