CzechOut

It opens 15 january?

The sort of thing you've pictured is a bit outside what would normally be a part of the adoptions process. Indeed, I'm not sure how closely it ties into the adoption request itself, since your denial was given without any knowledge of the pictured event. Also, since you removed this thread from my wall, it seems likely it's not a big deal anymore.

However, if you remain bothered by the event, I suggest you ask for help from our Customer Support department, via this link: https://fandom.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

I removed the this because I talked the the user and I found out that this post is fake. Someone photoshopped it and made it look like it was real. The admin plans to give me admin ship when I have enough edits on the wiki. So everything is really fine now :)

Answering your second question first, no, we wouldn't allow an adoption in this case. What needs to happen is a plan for merger. See Help:Merging communities for more info.

The reason for this is that we want both communities to have active, but separate, conversations about their possible joint future. If we were to allow an adoption , then it could very easily be a situation where one person, the adopter, was making the decisions.

The basic deal is that conversations need to be started on both communities, ideally by the most active people on each wiki. Then each wiki's busiest editors (or, if available, admin) should go around to the Message Wall/User talk pages of each person who's edited in the last 6-8 weeks and invite them to these two separate discussions. And the editing groups should, ideallyy, stay on their "home" wikis. In other words, people who primarily edit Wiki A should not participate in the discussions at Wiki B, and vice versa — though if there are people who legitimately edit both frequently, they can participate in either, or both, discussions. The notion is just that each community should make up its own mind. These conversations should ideally not happen in Discussions but in a blog or forum page — something on the "regular" part of the wiki, just in case anyone needs to use wiki text to make a point.

Once an agreement to merge is reached, the merger will typically be from the wiki with the fewer pages to the one with the more. That way, it's a lot less work! (So in fact, the typical direction would likely be from younger —> older wiki, and it has nothing to do with the current presence of Discussions.)

But that's getting way ahead of ourselves. First have the discussions and leave them open at least until mid-January.

Hope your holidays are great!

Okay thank you, but I am still quite confused. Neither of these wikis have active admins so we would need a fandom staff to come in, right? The Dogs and Puppies wiki has less than 3 editors in the last 6-8 weeks I am pretty sure. So say the merger is agreed on, what would happen then? Would we contact fandom staff and ask them to complete it? And once all that is over with there still will be no active admin, so then would it be available to adopt?

So this is a li'l bit unusual as most mergers do have admin around. However, it's still better to get approval for the merger from both wikis, and that doesn't require any special admin powers. I therefore suggest that both communities start separate merger discussions and come to their own conclusions about the merger. At the very least, it needs to be established on both wikis that no one is opposed to the idea. Essentially, the question has to be asked on both sides, even if an answer isn't forthcoming.

Once that happens, we'll worry about admin powers, and we'll make a determination based upon the outcome of the discussions.

What would happen then, presuming no opposition to merger, is that y'all (not Fandom staff) would migrate the content (using Special:Import and Special:Export), typically from the wiki that had the fewer pages to the one that had the greater. You would also be responsible for downloading any images you wanted to keep from the "donor" wiki, and then uploading those images to the "recipient" wiki. (Sorry! There's no quick way around this.)

Once you had lifeboated what you needed, just give me a shout, requesting that the donor wiki be closed in favour of the recipient wiki, and that its domain be redirected at the same time.

Alright. The first step has already been completed as there have been blog posts on both of the wikis suggesting a merger for over 3 weeks. I've gained lots of support on the dog wiki but no responses on the other.  I've also already gone to the donor wiki and marked all of the pages that should be merged. There were tons of pages off-topic, duplicate, and pages marked as stubs. 

I've been working with Kirkburn for the past few weeks on the merger as he said he could complete it himself (the merge was delayed due to the attribution bug. I believe the fix goes live today). My plan was supposed to be to wait for the merger to be completed (by Kirkburn) and then submit another adoption request.

If you would prefer us to go take the path you suggested, are you saying you would appoint an admin to complete the merger?

I believe I am the only consistent and actively editing user on either of the wikis so would it make sense to appoint me? In that case, I think it would be easier for all of us (I could complete the merger, we don't need to go back and forth on a help request, no need for another adoption request). 

Tell me what you think! Thanks!

Hey hey :)

Can you just slide me links to the two merger conversations so I can see where we are in terms of community approval?

Also, I've taken a look at Kirkburn's conversation with you in the main Customer Support ticket, and I think he was offering to help as more of a way to make sure the Ex/Im bug was fixed. But that was back before the holiday break. At this point, we have a pretty high confidence that, once the bug is fixed and pushed live, you shouldn't really need staff help to do the transfer.

Now, we will need to get you "admin-ed up" for you to fully avail yourself of the Ex/Im feature, so lemme have those links to merger convos, and I'll begin exploring the adoption side of this equation while we wait for the bug fix to be fully promulgated, which we expect a bit later in the week.

Oh also, let's make this the place where we have the conversation about merger/admin stuff, as it's much better for such important decisions to be held in a public area, rather than in a support ticket only you can see. (For that reason, your latest support ticket will simply be closed in preference for this conversation.)

Okay, sure! 

Here is the link for the Dog Wiki Merger convo-https://dog.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Bookdog11/Wiki_Merger_Discussion

Two out of the three consistently active editors at that time responded with their support. 

Here is the link for the Dogs and Puppies wiki merger convo- https://dogs.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Bookdog11/Wiki_Merging!

If you were wondering why that was posted so early, it's because there were a lot of complications before I actually submitted the adoption request but it's all coming together now. Only one user has responded with their approval but the blog has been up for quite a while and nobody is against it. 

So those are the blog posts! Lemme know if that's enough for a merger to happen. 

Oh! I would also like to note that we would prefer to merge the Dogs and Puppies wiki into the Dog wiki for a few reasons.

1. The Dogs and Puppies Wiki has lots of spam and OT pages.

2. There are fewer pages to transport to the Dog Wiki as less than half of the pages have good info on the Dogs and Puppies wiki. 

3. There are more active editors on the Dog WIki (I'm pretty sure). 

And as I've said before, we've already marked the pages we would merge with a template. Thanks!

Hi there :) In a real sense, your question is a little too hypothetical to answer. I don't really know what you mean by "things that don't belong on the wiki", and that makes it hard to give you a single answer.

If by that you mean actual vandalism — pornography, hate speech and the like — then your best action is probably to contact the good people at SOAP and let them scrub away the offensive material.

If, though, you mean stuff that is broadly on topic, but against your personal view of the wiki's subject, that's trickier. You'll have to decide how to handle things — and, really, that's a good test of an admin. Come down too harsh, and you might scare away an editor who would have been one of your greatest contributors.

In such a case, I'd suggest your first step be to talk to the person and try to get them to understand your position. If you can work it out, you'll have passed a reasonable leadership test that will help ensure you get to adopt.

"Stopping" the person should be a course of last resort.

I see, now. Thank you for the information. I'll keep the SOAP thing in mind.

Also, when I said "things that don't belong on the wiki," I meant by a character or creature that might belong in one franchise that one wiki covers but doesn't belong to another franchise another wiki might be covering. So for example, if someone were to add Godzilla or Batman onto the Jurassic Park wiki or the Dr. Who wiki, that is what I meant. (By the way, would that be considered vandalism?)

For context, the wiki I was trying to adopt is focused on Primeval (the TV show the Dr. Who Raptors from Dinosaurs on a Space Ship came from), and someone added several irrelevant pages, such as the Indominus rex from Jurassic World, onto the wiki. I've solved the issue as best as I can (via the Edit button), but I am kind of worried that something like this will happen again, especially with the wiki's bureaucrat being MIA for over 4+ years now. That is why I asked.

Sorry for the confusion and thank you for answering my question. I hope you had a wonderful holiday break and I guess I'll see you in June. 

Again, you're asking for broad definitions where none are possible. Would Superman on the I Love Lucy Wiki be vandalism? No, cause there was an episode that featured Superman. Would Superman on the Lord of the Rings Wiki be considered vandalism. I don't think so. I'd call it "inappropriate" at best — but even then, there may have been some parody featuring a crossover that could be considered marginally relevant.

On a straight up, encyclopaedic wiki about Primeval, is it possible Jurassic Park dinosaurs might be inappropriate? Maybe. But if the wiki were about Fanon, the case would be less clear. Fanon wikis, by definition, live in very grey areas, and I think the most you could say is that you don't personally like someone else's view of the topic.

Real vandalism involves things that violate Fandom's Terms of Use — pornography, hate speech, personal attacks, and the like. Just remember that vandalism is a highly-charged word, and it's a bit lazy. Best not to use it too often, and instead be very specific about what you find problematic.

I see. Well, the only reason why I used the term "vandalism" so loosely is because I didn't know how broad or narrow you and the people at Fandom use the term. Thank you for the clarification. I hope you have a good day.