Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User:RyRy5/Adoption Program

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. There were a number of opinions expressed, chiefly in support being that the page serves to help other users and that the existing adoption programs shouldn't be sanctioned monopolies. However, I placed more weight on the mostly unrefuted concerns of excessive bureaucracy and bad advice being doled out, and this was the tipping point for me. east.718 at 23:26, April 5, 2008

[edit] 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)

• Delete - redundant to WP:ADOPT and seemingly exclusionary (with "promotions" etc). Also per nom. Orderinchaos 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • The problem isn't adopting, it's the bureaucracy. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • 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)
        • 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)
            • 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)
                • 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)
• 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)
  • Comment. As I've said on my other comment, I totally agree that this is almost a case similar to the "Shops" thing. Thanks Enric Naval for citing the shops case. Macy (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Well the MfD is open for 5 days, which will put us on April 5, and of course, I'm willing to extend it a reasonable time for him to properly respond. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 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... 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. Friday (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

such a negative comment... those editors can learn more and become one day good candidates for adminship --Enric Naval (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When that day comes, I'll support them. Before that day comes, I'll oppose. Supporting today based on "You might someday be a good candidate" strikes me as rather foolish. Friday (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

comment The "This user hopes to become an admin someday," or whatever it is, userbox is enough for me to oppose most of the time, anyway George The Dragon (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I've spent quite a lot of time working with RyRy and others on this adoption program (check the archives of his talk page for details) and - while I think I had him convinced to work towards shutting it down - I'm not seeing substantive improvement. I'm gravely concerned that misinformation is being given out and the process is incredibly bureaucratic. RyRy means well, and has good intent, but simply does not have the technical knowledge to do what he's attempting to do. With a great deal of sadness, I must endorse deletion. - Philippe 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. The program is not improving with time on the right direction. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question When was the WP:Adopt program actually approved by anyone? it was just an initiative that stuck. Tryign to prevent another one sounds a little like WP:OWN. DGG (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Never actually participated in WP:Adopt other than reading its guidelines, so I really don't know its history. MBisanz ^talk 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I've been concerned by all these things for the future of Wikipedia. I completely agree with the delete reasons given above and at ANI. We'd better deal with this now, before it got out of hand. This adoption program is clearly part of the problem and is not so helpful for users. WP:ADOPT is enough and it's monitored. Cenarium^Talk 17:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunately. Phillippe and Enric Naval have stated it quite well. My first experience with RyRy was attempting to get his signature smaller, only to find out that one of his "new students" first lessons was RyRy telling her (a new user) to make hers bigger. Took me about 10-15 posts to get his (and the student's) signatures down from font size 5. The student said basically, "sorry, that's what my adopter told me to do". I think RyRy, who according to his userpage is in middle school (in the US, that means you are age 13 or younger) has his heart in the right place, but doesn't have the abilities needed to run a school. Please don't call me ageist for that, its not meant to be ageist, and I'm not ageist. There are very good reasons why 13 year olds (or younger) don't run schools. I strongly believe that editors are being mislead here, (not intentionally mind you, but still mislead), by this school, its "tests", and its clearly stated goal of edit count fluffery. I would be extremely hard pressed to support any admin candidate that came out of this school. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I was approached by RyRy5 a few weeks ago re: being adopted. I declined because at the time, i had more edits than Ry, and I have been around longer... I wanted someone who was MUCH more experienced. A week later, Ry left another message on my talk page, saying that he had 1500+ edits and that they still wanted to adopt me. I declined again and... well, that converstation has been dealt with. If you want to check that our see my Archive... I have tried to stay out of direct contact with RyRy as per Phil's advice with the altercation that took place. I will not say either aye or nay re: this MfD however I will say that I think that I believe this program to be of little use, and is harming to new members of the community who get solicited from Ry, thinking them to be an experienced user, and instead getting someone who has been here 2 months. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A bit redundant. Doesn't really do anything that the other adoption program does. Captain panda 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question: when the nomination says "Also User:RyRy5/Adoption Program", does it mean that the adoption program is up for deletion as well? Basketball110  Talk  02:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I'm working my way up the chain from the things I feel are the most objectionable material to the least objectionable material. This userbox is the most objectionable because it points new users to a page that is not being maintained or monitored by skilled users and has led to problems. If this is deleted, then I'll move to the staff page since that encourages unnecessary hierarchies per WP:NOT. If that goes, then I'll look into the entire program. Basically I want to make sure whatever is done, is done incrementally to properly judge the community's view on each aspect of this matter. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay. Thanks for clarifing. Basketball110  Talk  03:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Uhh, what?? You want more MFDs?!? Good lord, surely this crap can be disposed of with less hassle than that. Also, I may have misunderstood you. When I saw (Also User:RyRy5/Adoption Program) at the top, I went ahead and put an MFD notice on the adoption program main page, pointing it here. So it's possible I screwed up. Friday (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I also assumed it was an MFD for both, similar to a multiple AfD for related pages. I agree Friday, there is no need for two MFDs for the same concept that is being discussed here (whether it be a userbox or userpage is negligible to me, the entire program needs to go). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Certainly that would be more preferable to treat them as one unit. I was just hoping ot avoid a Keep this page; Delete that page sort of fractured discussion. But it seems the feeling on both sides is that this is one entire unit that should be judged as such. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Terraxos. Also nominating this for deletion while RyRy5 is on vacation strikes me as sneaky. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  Single editors are fairly insignificant- we don't put Wikipedia on hold while waiting for a single person. Also, he was notified of this on his talk page, so there's nothing remotely sneaky about it. Friday (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  It's already been stated above (by the nominator) that this could be extended if RyRy never comments here because he is offline. Nothing sneaky. IRC/email is sneaky. Public onwiki anything is inherently not sneaky. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I have not been following any of these related issues for several days because, frankly, it was beginning to make my head hurt. I have now reviewed some of the recent discussions and it seems that the original concerns remain largely intact despite a lot of effort by Philippe and others to encourage improvements. Users have demonstrated incredible patience with this issue, but the saga can only go on for so long. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep to Neutral to Delete It's in User space forgot about Wikipedia:UP#NOT Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, wait until RyRy5 comes back. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Things in userspace (if they are disruptive, misleading, or otherwise aggregiously non-encyclopedic or inherently against the norms of the wiki) get deleted through MfD all the time. RyRy being gone has already been addressed. Got anything else? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to change, but you beat me... _{(edit conflict)} Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - RyRy5 is an inexperienced user on Wikipedia, and (s)he should not have an adoption program. Also, I didn't know that a user can hire other users to teach them, such on this page, which lets me remember that no one should hire users, like in this unsuccessful MfD. Macy (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per bureaucracy and per Macys123 (talk · contribs). Also unexperienced user, but that shouldn't hold someone back! But, still, delete, or I would suggest a merge with WP:AAU if possible. BoL (Talk) 02:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep nice touch, it's always good to have people who want to help others. Wikipedia won't be destroyed because of this. -- m:drini 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately, it appears that he wasn't giving good advice, so he wasn't actually helping :( --Enric Naval (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

D'you mean RyRy5? Basketball110  Talk  02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean him. I didn't know he wasn't giving such bad advice. I guess I should have looked at the tests that he assigned to adoptees --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, advice such as telling adoptees to make their signatures a huge font isn't good advice. Nor is creating a large hierarchy and placing yourself at the top and requring others to pass tests to move up. And of course encouraging editcountitis in new users before their not new anymore isn't a good thing. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does he say that huge fonts are good? Do you know of a diff? Basketball110  Talk  03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

She asked him for a cool signature and he gave her this code User_talk:Writergirlrocks#re:Signature, and this half of a discussion User_talk:Keeper76/Archive_2#Reply, I was basing my comments off Keeper's higher on this page. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually this one User_talk:Keeper76/Archive_2#Sig_2, MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Also, I'm assuming y'all have seen his classroom (well, of course, or else we wouldn't be here!). Basketball110  Talk  03:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Philippe and Enric Naval. It's clear that this user's heart is in the right place, though. GlassCobra 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Enric Naval. This is very similar to the shops as he stated. Metros (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment from creator Well, I'm RyRy5, the creator of the adoption program. This program is used to teach my adoptees. If I teach them wrong, I will tell them ASAP, which I have already done. I know I have made some mistakes, telling my adoptees wrong info, but I plan to change that. I am not trying to create a new Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. I will also deplete my adoptees to only 1-3 tops. I also said that I will slow or possibly close down my program. If my program is deleted, I at least would like to keep the Classroom. Thanks.--RyRy5 talk 01:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete User seems to fundamentally misunderstand the project on a number of levels. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Entirely too myspace-y in addition to the fact that the user has neither the experience nor the mindset to be an effective and positive adopter. -M^ask? 02:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: This is in template space. Userboxes (especially ones like these, focused on and around single user) belong in userspace. Yet another small datum of wikipedia best practices that adopted users should be confident their adoptee knows. -M^ask? 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Take a look at these diffs: [1] and [2], I cite "Sorry, but I have been in a way, forced to fire you as a teacher. My adoptees are mine, not yours. No harm feelings. Cheers". Why this possessive attitude ? I can't get it. It has to stop. Cenarium^Talk 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, I may have put that "possessive attitude" into RyRy's mind. My thinking of that came from a comment made here about how they were RyRy's adoptees. I removed my name from the teachers list, taking that comment to mind. Today, when RyRy got back from his vacation, I told him that I had removed my name. Perhaps this clarifies. Basketball110  Talk  02:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I had to let them go. It was told that I couldn't really make others teach my adoptees because they are mine. 1 of my teachers was actually blocked and was told not to adopt and/or somehow teach users as they were that users' adoptees. If I sounded a little mean when letting them go, I apologize.--RyRy5 talk 02:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It wasn't the "sounding mean" part, it was the "this is a job structure with a boss and employees" part. Metros (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for clarifying. I decided to stop the whole employee thing. It will only be me, the adopter.--RyRy5 talk 02:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Do you understand why it is not really acceptable to refer to fellow Wikipedia editors as "employees"? George The Dragon (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes I do, and instaed of saying "your fired", I should have just said that they could not teach because they are my adoptees and not theirs. And alot more.RyRy5 talk 03:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Just because they are your adoptees doesnt mean that others cant teach them lessons if the adoptee wishes to learn from the person. Although written specifically about articles, WP:OWN applies to a great deal of activity on-wiki in practice. The issues we have with the boss/fired talk is that you have no authority and are not in a place to be a boss or fire anyone. -M^ask? 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Well, User:Nothing444 was told not to teach adoptees because he was blocked, and he was teaching at the classroom. Admins told him to not teach adoptees. I will try to find a link for this.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • That's well and good, but has nothing to do with addressing the attitude or possessiveness in your posts. -M^ask? 04:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Well, I do agree that it violates WP:MYSPACE, and I have been teaching adoptees but thats okay. I have taught adoptees under the rule of "Criteria for adoption" it said "if adopter does not meet criteria for adoption he/she should consider co-adopting" And co-teacing is even less than co-adopting. But then again, I still agree with MBisanz, so there. Nothing444 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.