Adoption talk:Requests

Nominations
Is it possible to open new adoption requests if the person opening them is not the one wanting to be the bureaucrat or administrator? Like can we nominate others who have a clear interest in controlling the content?

For example: the bureaucrat and sysop of w:c:LegoLegendsOfChima (founded September) have, through their edits, made it clear that they no longer have an interest in maintaining the content on the Wikia project and instead, want to use the Wikia to advertise their external wiki hosted on BrickCraft.

In the meanwhile, the most active editor on LLOC, User:Green Ninja, as seen on w:c:Chima:Special:ListUsers, is still actively editing and opposes this. This resulted in January in him forming w:c:Chima-Lego in an attempt to guard the content and create an active wiki presence.

Prior to that, in November, a w:c:Legends-Of-Chima wiki was also founded by User:Chakor Channing who has been very active there.

I am thinking that due to the demonstrated lack of interest in maintaining the LLOC content, perhaps the (experienced contributor) Green Ninja (GN) and Chakor Channing (CC) should both be given bureaucrat rights on the older LLOC wiki so that they can co-operatively verify that the wiki will not be reduced to merely advertising BrickCraft.

I think that doing that would also give incentive for them to merge the contents from their newer Nov LOC and Jan CL communities into the original Sept LLOC one so that we could have a single wiki about Chima.

Probably using the simple http://chima.wikia.com URL (which currently redirects to the advertising Sept LLOC one) to consolidate the information would be preferable. Am thinking that if GN/CC could both be bureaucrats at LLOC that they might possibly move to that shorter URL which could serve as a nexus for merging the 2 newer wikis into the first one so that all 3 long URLs could point to the short one which could have administrators dedicated to maintaniing the Wikia content itself.

This isn't to say that the BrickCraft project is bad or shouldn't be linked to as a sister site or anything (I know that w:c:KingdomHearts has a relationship like this with its external 'parent' site KHwiki.net) just that I think if we host content on wiki we should have, if they are available and willing (which seems apparenty) crats dedicated to preserving Wikia's content and not prioritizing external site advertisement. +Yc 15:39, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, sounds like a complicated situation :)  I don't think adoption is the right route for this, but I certainly agree the wiki needs some looking after.  I've added a blog post there to start the conversation.  Maybe you can join me there :) --sannse (help forum | blog)  01:16, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add a meaningful id to "International adoption request links" (for anchor linking).--PedroM 17:16, May 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Very late but #international should work now. Thisismyrofl (talk) 03:19, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Adopting
I'm trying to enter my adoption form but it keeps saying put a number in parentheses?

Brendon1689 (talk) 21:57, January 6, 2014 (UTC)Brendon1689
 * It means that there has already been a request for the wiki (or a wiki for the same name. What you need to do is add a number in parenthesis to the end of the wiki name on the form.
 * e.g. If a request is for a wiki called Test Wiki, that would be Test Wiki (2).

New Forms
I want to know what people (the ones that actually read this page) think about the new form system I created. Is it troublesome? Is it easy to use? Does it perform it's job well? The main idea that I had in mind for this script when making it was to simplify the creation of adoption requests and to give every adoption request a standardized look in order to make it easier to read. Lil' Miss Rarity  ]Open Source[   (talk) 22:29, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admins or inactive bureaucrats?
One of the requirements is "Admins have been inactive for 60 days or more". What about if the admins are active, but the bureaucrats haven't made any edits in that 60 day period? Can a regular user still make an adoption request if they create a "I want to adopt this wiki" forum or blog and invite the admins to participate? Or would that person get bumped in favor of an admin who decided to make the adoption, even if they did so after that person's announcement was posted?

I'm an admin on a wiki that's in that exact situation: 4 of the 6 admins have made edits in the past month, but all 3 bureaucrats left over a year ago and haven't logged into their account for at least two months. I can get the discussion going to adopt the wiki, but I can't actually make the request until next month since I just adopted a different one two days ago. I'm just as happy to let someone else do it if it means it can happen sooner. —RRabbit42 ( leave a message ) 03:04, February 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * In cases where Admins wish to seek the Rights of a Bureaucrat, then "the last Admin to edit" should be "last Bureaucrat to edit", and yes, it should be more than 60 days.


 * When there are more than one active admin, there should be a discussion between them as to who, and sometimes how many, should seek the extra Rights. In addition, should there be even a 1-person community, *their* opinions should be sought either by direct messages or via Blog or Forum, depending on which is most expedient. At least 7 days is needed to allow for responses if there are to be any, and for a consensus to be reached. Links of all communique should be added to the Request.


 * I hope that helps. --Love Robin (talk) 03:15, February 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note, RRabbit, that community consensus is at the heart of any adoption. If the community approves a person to become administrator+bureaucrat of the wiki, then the request is likely to go through. If the community approves, the user can be an existing admin, or a regular, unprivileged user (even if other admins are present). Thisismyrofl (talk) 03:21, February 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * Typically, we prefer to promote already existing admins on the wiki, but every case is different. What Love Robin said above in regards to "last bureaucrat to edit" is not actually true. We'd still want to know when the last admin has edited (we check anyways) and it helps if the additional comments section reflects the situation -- that this is a wiki with active admins; just not active bureaucrats that can promote other users as necessary.


 * As Rofl and Robin both stated above, community consensus is key. In the situation of a wiki with active admins, but inactive bureaucrats it would be handled the same way whether it's a normal user requesting or an existing admin. We'd ask for a discussion on the wiki about a possible adoption and who would be the best to fit that role.


 * Keep in mind though, that every case is different and each adoption is treated in a case-by-case manner. Rappy 05:59, February 7, 2014 (UTC)