Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User/Criteria/Archive1

message: There has been a proposed section of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User that includes specific criteria for adoption. This matter is being discussed and no criteria will be added until a consensus is reached.  When the final draft is made all previosly noted thoughts, opinions, and complaints should be reviewed. 
These are the proposed versions of the criteria:
=== Proposal #1 ===
----
Be a member of Esperanza
 
Be a member of the Kindness Campaign (KC)
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
Have not been blocked in the last year
Must always be ready to help out their adoptee
Must have a co-adopter for every one adoptee.  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.
To quit this program you must have had a total of three adoptees, at seperate times, who's relationships with you have been ended for at least three months.  This doesn't apply to wikibreaks or terminating all relations to wikipedia.  Remember this is only a guideline, since there is no real way to enforce it.
Cannot have had more than two edits counted as vandalism in the last five months.
Cannot currently be an adoptee and must have been free of adoption for the last two weeks and not have been accused of vandalism, must not have been blocked, and must be part of Concordia for one week.
NOTE: If you joined this program before these rules were instituted, you do not have to meet these requirements.
----
==== Decision? ====
Read discussion before you make a decision.
Approve:
----
Oppose:
#Don't like it at all, now Randfan 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point. The "multiple adopters" is a very bad decision, but I would like to point out that Adopt-a-User will soon be incorporates into Esperanza. ~ Flameviper 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I haven't seen anything about that over at Esperanza. --Daniel Olsen 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YA RLY. I'm adding it now. ~ Flameviper 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to update there header- there aren't just seven programs any more in Esperanza. Randfan 21:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, some of the rules are bad.  I just added some to make it so we have guidelines, and that they could always be deleted.  I, now, don't like the one that restricts leave and think the one that states you need multiple other adopters should be re-written. Randfan 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The multi-adopter would be like having a couple parents in real life. Randfan 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I now suggest more of something like this:
=== Proposal #2 ===
----
Be a member of Esperanza
 
Be a member of the Kindness Campaign (KC)
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
Have not been blocked in the last year
Must always be ready to help out their adoptee
Cannot have had more than two edits counted as vandalism in the last five months.
Cannot currently be an adoptee and 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).
It is prefered that a co-adopter for every one adoptee is instituted in the relationshi 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.
NOTE: If you joined this program before these rules were instituted, you do not have to meet these requirements.
-Randfan 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: the reason I think these rules are better is that it ensures that the soon-to-be-adopter will be a good person for it but still retains more rights than in the first draft.  I think we should have a "Constitutional Convention" and decide on the rules.  Once the rules are finally agreed upon by all/most, than we write them out in an official manner and have everyone check themm over and make new suggestions.  When everything is good, we will post them as the official criteria.  I think that we should also debate over any point an unlimited number of times during and throughout the convention- that way if someone has a new thought, it will be expressed.  I also think the we should have a criteria instead of lettimg anyone in.  And, of course, we need to select who will take part in the convention, adopters, adoptees, both, anyone... I think anyone who is currently a member or anyone becomes a member during the debate. Randfan 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and we need to officially name this organization.  I'm fine with Adopt-A-User but I think the adoptr should be called a Mentor/tutor (though that would ruin the theme).  I like Mentor more.
And we need to name the Adoptee (I'm fine with this name) Randfan 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we still adopt while this discussion is going on?  Part of me says yes, part of me says no. Randfan 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to listen to others before I vote and I'd like to vot for the final or something that will help/be developed into the final.  i'm not to strongly opposed to this but not fully for it either (and I wrote it!) Randfan 21:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that if it survives, it should be merged with Prop. 3 (which is, in essence, this proposal). Randfan 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: okay.  I like yours.  I think it may just need a few extra touches, if we combine 3 and 4 I think it would be great. Randfan 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am setting up a page to talk over specific rules/guide lines here Randfan 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Esperanza programme requirements are out of scope. Requirement for number of edits and/or time on Wikipedia makes more sense. Personally, I see no need for requirements. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Daniel's idea is the best I've seen so far, as I agree with some of the above qualifications, but not all of them. The only thing you'd have to watch for was conflicting qualifications (e.g., must be/must not be a member of some guild/clan/project, etc). ... aa:talk 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: maybe we can call it a guideline instead of a criteria (that way they don't have to meet them but may think again if they see it and think they need more experience). Randfan 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Randfan here. But I would take out any mention of EA, KC, and CC. It's a bad, and quite frankly absurd, precedent to set. - Che Nuevara 21:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree guidelines good, any mention of EA, KC and CC bad Lethaniol 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Right now, Esperanza is a bit shaky also, and it's probably best to leave it out, at least for now. "Recommended" to join Esperanza and/or KC, but not required is probably better criteria for adopters. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo. That makes sense. ~ Flameviper 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria Proposals 

message: Read discussion before you make a decision.
Approve:
----
Oppose:
#Don't like it at all, now Randfan 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: ----
Be a member of Esperanza
 
Be a member of the Kindness Campaign (KC)
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
Have not been blocked in the last year
Must always be ready to help out their adoptee
Cannot have had more than two edits counted as vandalism in the last five months.
Cannot currently be an adoptee and 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).
It is prefered that a co-adopter for every one adoptee is instituted in the relationshi 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.
NOTE: If you joined this program before these rules were instituted, you do not have to meet these requirements.
-Randfan 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the reason I think these rules are better is that it ensures that the soon-to-be-adopter will be a good person for it but still retains more rights than in the first draft.  I think we should have a "Constitutional Convention" and decide on the rules.  Once the rules are finally agreed upon by all/most, than we write them out in an official manner and have everyone check themm over and make new suggestions.  When everything is good, we will post them as the official criteria.  I think that we should also debate over any point an unlimited number of times during and throughout the convention- that way if someone has a new thought, it will be expressed.  I also think the we should have a criteria instead of lettimg anyone in.  And, of course, we need to select who will take part in the convention, adopters, adoptees, both, anyone... I think anyone who is currently a member or anyone becomes a member during the debate. Randfan 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and we need to officially name this organization.  I'm fine with Adopt-A-User but I think the adoptr should be called a Mentor/tutor (though that would ruin the theme).  I like Mentor more.
And we need to name the Adoptee (I'm fine with this name) Randfan 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we still adopt while this discussion is going on?  Part of me says yes, part of me says no. Randfan 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to listen to others before I vote and I'd like to vot for the final or something that will help/be developed into the final.  i'm not to strongly opposed to this but not fully for it either (and I wrote it!) Randfan 21:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that if it survives, it should be merged with Prop. 3 (which is, in essence, this proposal). Randfan 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal #2 

message: read discussion before you make a decision.
Approve:
----
Oppose:
#As Pro 1, poor, far too many criteria, should be based on a minimum number ofedits and time, and good reputation only (i.e. no vandalism/blocks} Lethaniol 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: :the reason I think these rules are better is that it ensures that the soon-to-be-adopter will be a good person for it but still retains more rights than in the first draft.  I think we should have a "Constitutional Convention" and decide on the rules.  Once the rules are finally agreed upon by all/most, than we write them out in an official manner and have everyone check themm over and make new suggestions.  When everything is good, we will post them as the official criteria.  I think that we should also debate over any point an unlimited number of times during and throughout the convention- that way if someone has a new thought, it will be expressed.  I also think the we should have a criteria instead of lettimg anyone in.  And, of course, we need to select who will take part in the convention, adopters, adoptees, both, anyone... I think anyone who is currently a member or anyone becomes a member during the debate. Randfan 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and we need to officially name this organization.  I'm fine with Adopt-A-User but I think the adoptr should be called a Mentor/tutor (though that would ruin the theme).  I like Mentor more.
And we need to name the Adoptee (I'm fine with this name) Randfan 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we still adopt while this discussion is going on?  Part of me says yes, part of me says no. Randfan 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to listen to others before I vote and I'd like to vot for the final or something that will help/be developed into the final.  i'm not to strongly opposed to this but not fully for it either (and I wrote it!) Randfan 21:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that if it survives, it should be merged with Prop. 3 (which is, in essence, this proposal). Randfan 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prop. 2 discussion 

message: ----
Must always be ready to help out their adoptee.
Be a member of Esperanza and be a member of the Kindness Campaign (KC)
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
Have not been blocked in the last month
Cannot have had more than two edits counted as vandalism in the last five months.
Cannot currently be an adoptee and 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).
It is prefered 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.
NOTE: If you joined this program before these rules were instituted, you do not have to meet these requirements.
-Randfan 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal #3 

message: read discussion before you make a decision.
Approve:
#I approve of it more than any previous. Randfan 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: I think being ready to help your adoptee(s) is first and for most.
And the note at the bottom is important, too.  If any new props come (probably) they should include that, same with the final, too. Randfan 21:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prop. 3 discussion 

message: ----
Must always be ready to help out their adoptee
Have not been blocked in the last 3 months
Cannot have had more than two edits counted as vandalism in the last three months.
----
--Daniel Olsen 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal #4

message: read discussion before you make decision.
----
Oppose:
#Weak Oppose Needs adopter to have done some minimum editing/time Lethaniol 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: ----
==== Discussion for Final Proposal for the Adopt-A-User Criteria ====
==== Past Discussion for Final Proposal for the Adopt-A-User Criteria ====
Why don't we have discussion for each of the proposed criteria (must be Esperanza, must not be vandal, etc) instead of voting on proposals as a whole? --Daniel Olsen 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay.  I like yours.  I think it may just need a few extra touches, if we combine 3 and 4 I think it would be great. Randfan 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am setting up a page to talk over specific rules/guide lines here Randfan 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Esperanza programme requirements are out of scope. Requirement for number of edits and/or time on Wikipedia makes more sense. Personally, I see no need for requirements. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Daniel's idea is the best I've seen so far, as I agree with some of the above qualifications, but not all of them. The only thing you'd have to watch for was conflicting qualifications (e.g., must be/must not be a member of some guild/clan/project, etc). ... aa:talk 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final 

message: Why don't we have discussion for each of the proposed criteria (must be Esperanza, must not be vandal, etc) instead of voting on proposals as a whole? --Daniel Olsen 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay.  I like yours.  I think it may just need a few extra touches, if we combine 3 and 4 I think it would be great. Randfan 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am setting up a page to talk over specific rules/guide lines here Randfan 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Esperanza programme requirements are out of scope. Requirement for number of edits and/or time on Wikipedia makes more sense. Personally, I see no need for requirements. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Daniel's idea is the best I've seen so far, as I agree with some of the above qualifications, but not all of them. The only thing you'd have to watch for was conflicting qualifications (e.g., must be/must not be a member of some guild/clan/project, etc). ... aa:talk 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past Discussion for Final Proposal for the Adopt-A-User Criteria 

message: *Do we really need any requirements? If a user thinks they know what they're doing and they want to help, then why shouldn't you be allowed to adopt someone less experienced than you? Why should you have to join Esperanza, KC, Concordia, and wait at least two weeks? Why shouldn't you be allowed to help out as many people as you want? I think 3 or four of the rules would exclude me as an adopter altogether. I agree with the fact that you shouldn't have vandalized or been blocked, and that you should be willing to help out (duh), but the rest is just useless beaurocracy. --Daniel Olsen 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe we can call it a guideline instead of a criteria (that way they don't have to meet them but may think again if they see it and think they need more experience). Randfan 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Randfan here. But I would take out any mention of EA, KC, and CC. It's a bad, and quite frankly absurd, precedent to set. - Che Nuevara 21:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree guidelines good, any mention of EA, KC and CC bad Lethaniol 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Right now, Esperanza is a bit shaky also, and it's probably best to leave it out, at least for now. "Recommended" to join Esperanza and/or KC, but not required is probably better criteria for adopters. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo. That makes sense. ~ Flameviper 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose All