Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User:RyRy5/Adoption Program: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:14, 1 April 2008

Template:User:RyRy5/Adoption Program

(Also User:RyRy5/Adoption Program)

This program is claimed to be an editors area to help adoptees, but this template implies it is an adoption program different from WP:ADOPT. Its therefore an unnecessary bifurcation and begins to rub up against WP:NOT#MYSPACE. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to WP:ADOPT and seemingly exclusionary (with "promotions" etc). Also per nom. Orderinchaos 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - it's a duplicate, encourages excessive bureaucracy and directs people away from the encyclopedia. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So what if it's implied that it's different from WP:ADOPT? You don't need WP:ADOPT to adopt users. This guy just wants to help other users and set up his own page for it. This is a silly nomination, if it is indeed serious (april fools joke?). Equazcion •✗/C • 04:00, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Its an actual nomination, based off of a real AN/I discussion. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then yeah, it's real silly. WP:ADOPT isn't a process. It's just a way for people to find each other. Doing it via another page is perfectly fine. This isn't like doing something "improperly outside the proper process". It's just adoption, people, let's not go nuts here. Nothing official goes on there. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:13, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Comment: it's Ryry's ways of implementing WP:ADOPT. Basketball110 Talk 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all good faith - the user has 520 mainspace edits. The classroom is quite interesting as well. I think the newbies are better served by an established programme which, although in some ways arbitrary, does allow a fair degree of scrutiny of adopters. Orderinchaos 04:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument would work if WP:ADOPT were required in order for an adoption to occur, but it's not. Anyone can adopt anyone without going through any process. IF you want to propose a way to prevent adoptions by users with a lack of experience, that'd be something to consider. But this isn't the way. Presently anyone can do it. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:54, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested it was required, or that adoption as a process is even required. What I'm more concerned about is newbies either being driven off the project thinking it's too hard and there's a set of rules which don't in fact exist, or being encouraged to adopt editing styles or goals which do not further the encyclopaedia. Seen it a few too many times, especially with some of the adopters or so-called admin coaches. The signs of this particular scheme (including the links MBisanz has highlighted) point to that as a possible or even likely outcome. Orderinchaos 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undent. I'd say exchanges like this User_talk:Katie1971#Adoption, User_talk:RyRy5#Adoption_3 illustrate why inexperienced users may not want to be adopters and why its better to keep the program centralized for matching purposes. MBisanz ^talk 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Adoptions that occur through WP:ADOPT run all those same risks. WP:ADOPT isn't some kind of oversight. It begins and ends with an adoptee finding an adopter. Anything beyond that is the responsibility of the adopter, which we leave entirely in his or her hands. WP:ADOPT doesn't prevent inexperienced users from adopting people or from giving bad information to new users. This userpage doesn't create any new concerns that weren't already there. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:06, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Case of statistical probability - if something is in a more visible location, it can be more easily identified and fixed. Anyway, interesting as this extended conversation about adoption programs is, it has nothing to do with the MfD at hand. Orderinchaos 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the point of this discussion? That the template doesn't link to WP:ADOPT the way the "official" one does? Linking to WP:ADOPT isn't a requirement. The "official" template isn't a requirement. I can type out in text my desire to adopt someone, with no mention of the "official" adoption page on Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with that. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:38, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The grounds on which deletion is suggested is actually WP:NOT#MYSPACE. I think I confused things by offering an extended opinion in my support reason. Orderinchaos 05:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT#MYSPACE has nothing to do with the template. It might have to do with the pages themselves, but those aren't up for deletion. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:44, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

WP:BURO reminder. Note that one of the pages *is* up for deletion, and I presume its subpages would follow. Orderinchaos 09:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to test the water with what I felt was the most clear and egergious part of this program. RyRy5 has answered questions on this before that his adoption program is for him to help adoptees. This box indicates otherwise. If the community keeps this page, then it basically is cool with this whole subproject. If it deletes this page, then I'd look into whether or not the principal/hierarchy thing should be kept and so on. MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see where it says WP:ADOPT must be the only adopt-a-user program in existence. If other users want to carry out their own informal adoptions, so much the better for Wikipedia! Terraxos (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem isn't adopting, it's the bureaucracy. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then nominate WP:ADOPT for deletion. It's just as much an official process as this page is. Bureaucracy means a process that's required in order to do something. It's not like this page adds some new requirement to the adoption process. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:38, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    - Some bureaucracy is necessary to function, but this is just excessive. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't bureaucracy. WP:ADOPT isn't bureaucracy. Neither of them are required. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:44, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
        But with MOTD, it was decided that small projects with unnecessary hierarchies and bureaucracy were a bad thing. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not bureaucracy unless it's a required process. This is not bureaucracy. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:49, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
        Your telling me this and this aren't bureaucracies? Their what this template is meant to advertise. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup. They're not required. They're just things that people can choose to participate in if they want to. That's not what bureaucracy means. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:55, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
        passing the tests *is* required, and adoptees actually to have to pass several of them and keep improving your marks. And the bureaucracy structure exists and it's required because you have to be a teacher in order to adopt on that program, and being a teacher also requires permission from RyRy. Notice also the existance of a 5-level top-bottom hierarchy "Principal - Vice Principal - Teacher - Assistant - Interim (optional)". It's just that the positions are still empty because the program is too new and doesn't have yet enough people to fill it. There are also awards for adoptees: "Award of First Success. If you perform well on your tests and are generally a good student, you will receive many of these", now, that's a reward for performing well on a bureaucracy, if I ever saw one (ok, that last argument is a bit lame). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Vintei/shop: It creates staff/bureaucracy/employees and a parallel organization, only it's a school instead of a shop. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart. There are also several problems with the program quality. The program puts too much emphasis on sheer number of contributions and not on its quality, and asks adoptees to have 2000 contributions to graduate. Quality of contributions is not taken into account anywhere. It doesn't seem to distinguish between a vandalism-reversal and a thougtful addition of a well-balanced well-sourced NPOV paragraph to an article, despite the second one taking much more time and also being important. This plain just doesn't help new users to become better editors, unless they are anti-vandal fighters, where defending a lot of articles is important. It also asks new users to vote three times on a RFA. Again, it doesn't seem to take into account the quality of the vote (it's a discussion of arguments, not a poll, remember WP:PNSD Polling is not a substitute for discussion) so it's teaching them to poll instead of aporting arguments for consensus. RyRy doesn't seem experienced enough to know that constitutes a good vote on a RFA, since he is still learning that himself. I'm sorry, RyRy, I just can't vote keep for this :( You should really enter the adoption program and get more experience as an adopter before setting standards for others --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to his page, the page creator and head of program RyRy5 in on holiday until 4 April, so he can't defend his program here until then --Enric Naval (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be little more than a programme aimed at encouraging users to get as many edits as possible, as quickly as possible. And I have concerns about the classroom, as said above. If this was an established user who demonstrated an understanding of policy, etc, I would not have much of a problem with this running alongside the adoption programme, but as things stand... George The Dragon (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's useful to be able to see the list of people participating in this nonsense. I like having a handy list of editors to oppose at RFA. Friday (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 *'''Comment''' according to his page, the page creator and head of program RyRy5 in on holiday until 4 April, so he can't defend his program here until then --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 14:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' It appears to be little more than a programme aimed at encouraging users to get as many edits as possible, as quickly as possible. And I have concerns about the classroom, as said above. If this was an established user who demonstrated an understanding of policy, etc, I would not have much of a problem with this running alongside the adoption programme, but as things stand... [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Comment'''.  It's useful to be able to see the list of people participating in this nonsense. I like having a handy list of editors to oppose at RFA.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)