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)

This feels hard. Though the team is nice and very helpful! KonigTheRottie (talk) 02:30, May 16, 2014 (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)

Message from Variousthings3241
I had another account but i disabled it to unblock myself on a wiki. I am the founder of Pyramid Solitaire Saga Wiki and i want my admin power back. Variousthings3241 (talk) 13:11, April 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * Contact staff about this via Special:Contact/general, and make sure your email is the same as it was on your other account. -- City♥ Lights  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Wikia_Logo.svg/45px-Wikia_Logo.svg.png   13:24, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Adoption within the last month
I haven't adopted any sites recently but I havve created some, am I elgible to adopt a wikia?FortressMaximus &#35;2014YearofMecha (Talk) 14:45, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time, you would have been ineligible, because the guideline was "You have not founded, adopted, or been given admin access on another wiki in the last 60 days".
 * However, this edit by Staff reduced the specificity of this condition to "You have not adopted another wiki in the last month". That it was loosened implies that you will be OK if all other guidelines are met. Thisismyrofl (talk) 16:34, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

Blocked.
So is it true that if you're blocked on a wiki, you're not allowed to adopt? I want to know this because I'm looking to adopt a wiki, but I'm blocked on the iCarly Wiki and the Sam and Cat Wiki by the same person, as far as I know. If I can get a quick response then it would be good.

08:24, April 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. Though there is an "escape clause": the nature of the block is checked, and it's sometimes ignored, but that's no guarantee it will be done in your case. You're not blocked by the same admin - it's 3cooldog92 and ArianaGrandeForever, and the reasons are sock- and meat puppetry, respectively. -- Tupka 217 08:36, April 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, 3cooldog92 originally blocked me on the Sam and Cat Wiki for two months back in October last year and then all of a sudden told ArianaGrandeForever to block me for infinite. Both 3cooldog92 and ArianaGrandeForever are the only admins on the Sam and Cat Wiki. On the iCarly one, it says that 3cooldog92 blocked me for "Behind several troll accounts" which is a lie because I've never owned a troll account in my life. Even check my IP address if you will.
 * 08:43, April 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just reporting, not reviewing. You could give it a shot, and explain that though you are blocked, you think they're wrong. If you come clean at the start, there's a chance of mercy. No guarantee, but if you don't shoot, you'll always miss. -- Tupka 217 09:13, April 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * So do I just play it out and make the adoption page or contact Wikia privately first?
 * 09:18, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

No one has responeded to my request.

 * No users or staff have responded to my request for the Pirate101 wiki, can someone please respond to it, Im getting reallyimpatient, here is the link to my request. Adoption:Pirate 101 wiki [[User:Player67|Player67 (talk) 21:42, June 26, 2014 (UTC)]]


 * Staff replies in about 7 business days. There's no way to jump the queue. -- Tupka 217 21:45, June 26, 2014 (UTC)