Forum:UPHPRD

Per Halopedia:Requests for Usergroups, this group must have two suitably qualified nominators, at least 20 votes in support, and an 80% consensus to pass. This RfU must remain open a minimum of two weeks, and at most two months.

Proposal
Hello all, H*bad and Ryanngreenday are suggesting a new Usergroup. UPHPRD stands for: Users Promoting Halopedia Policy Review Discussion. It is to be made for the community, run by the community to represent the community when the community disagrees with the admins. This will allow for peaceful talks. Charter is under development. If anymore information just say so in the comments. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC) and  UNSCoH   General   "Running   Riot"   Ryan    BAM  18:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For (20)

 * 1) Support- This way, there shouldn't be any heated arguments on the IRC, or on Halopedia for that matter.  What  did  HaloDude  Do!?!  20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--[[Image:GRAW.png|20px]] MCPO Spartan  1138  20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support-- People needs to talk, Good idea. Clavix2 [[Image:Halo2emblemClavix.jpg|30px]] SPAM COME HERE  NEVER DO THIS 20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Forgottenlord told me about the idea, I ran with it. AJ 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support-- [[Image:General.png|20px]] Grievous797 Comm 18:15 11 September 2007
 * 6) Support--H*bad (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I support this.--Jargner 22:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I support this idea.- Thegoodone [[Image:SSgt Avery Johnson, UNSC Marine Corps.JPG|20px]]  "Messages go here"  What I've Done 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Same as AJ--ChurchReborn 00:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) ÇЋЇŒʢ ʕЛΆΝќAegis Company [[Image:Marines HALO wars.jpg|40px]] βĻά βĻά βĻάɰЊάł Ḷ ḍõИШ  00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --forgottenlord 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Policies do tend to get a little hassling, but we need them! I also like it when the people have a little power -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) GREAT SUPPORT Ok, I'm sick and tired of many things here. I've had to convince two people from leaving Halopedia as is in the past two weeks. I want fairness at Halopedia, and want the admins to be with the community. Arguments will continue, but will hopefully be more like debates and can be solved fairly. Plus, I do think the admins need some help.-- Canis Lupus [[Image:Wolf paw.jpg|20px]] - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 03:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) SUPPORT I agree with this whole heartedly. No offense to the admins, all of which I respect greatly, but no one needs (in RR's words and I know he'll correct me on that because I never can get it right. He needs to go ahead and get his way of saying it copyrighted) "UN-LIMIT-ED POW-AH!!" Of course, it's also nice to have people with a little extra power so never get rid of all the power of the admins. -- Lordofmonsterisland "Roar to me"  00:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) SUPPORT  Phil.e.   [Talk to me] 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Sounds good.  22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User not eligible to vote; less than 50 edits. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support the admins don't have to listen but it's a good idea. [[Image:Marine Corp CPL.JPG|30px]] FistofthEmperor (For the Emperor )(<font color="Green">For the Inquisition )
 * 2) Support self explanitory. [[Image:1_I_am_saving_up_for_this_-1.jpg|20px]] <font color=Blue>Guitarplayer001 <font color=Black>Contact Me<font color=Green>See where I have rocked out! 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Iforgot to vote lol.-- UNSCoH   General   "Running   Riot"   Ryan  [[Image:Sm Sniper Rifle.gif]]  BAM  23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Because citizen representation is what makes the world go round.--Extramrdo 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User's only edit; likely sockpuppet. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Period. <font color="#78866B">SPARTAN-001  [COM•C S V ] [[Image:Spikers.jpg|60px]]<font face=papyrus color=green>FIGHT<font color=black face=papyrus>FINISHED 12:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support as per. . . well everybody, really. --Charles II 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral (3)

 * 1) Sowwy... it's just me... :( --<font color="#D3D3D3">B <font color="#A9A9A9">le <font color="#808080">mo http://www.wikia.com/skins/common/progress-wheel.gif <font color="#A9A9A9">TALK • <font color="A9A9A9">CONTRIBUTIONS • <font color="#A9A9A9"> THE SOURCE OF SPAM 05:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I like the idea but I don't think it will be very useful so for now I am staying neutral.--<font color="#000000">First Sergeant G-23 <font color="#FF0000">Comm Channel <font color=#000000>Mission History[[Image:Marine Corp 1stSgt.jpg|20px]]<font color="#000000">B Company  21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I don't really care. <font color="Steel">Freelancer <font color="Teal">"SquakBox"<font color="Orange">"MyJunk" 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Against (2)

 * 1) This usergroup would be a waste of space. In case none of you noticed, the community can represent itself and does not need a group of people to speak to the admins for it. For a group like this to make any sense whatsoever, everyone would have to be of equal power, and everyone would have to join, so we'd just have to refer to the "community" as the "UPHPRD," which would just be a bunch of hassle so the community and the admins can speak peacefully. Of course, this wouldn't work anyway, as the reason talks between the admins and community are never peaceful is because, at least in my case, the admins continually need to say the same thing over and over again in rapid succession for the community to even read it, let alone understand it. I know it's really not very fair for me to be telling you guys to read what we say rather than just arguing against us without knowing what our position is, but that's really the only problem that we have here, and we don't need a usergroup to solve it. --NOTASTAFF NOTASTAFF  GPT ( talk )( eating ) 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's called a Union, GPT. Despite the fact that all employees can speak equally to their boss, and despite the fact that they all have the right to speak to their boss, there's still this big huge "you're fired" button sitting on the boss's desk that he can hold over the employee. So what do they do, they get together in this group that consists of (*shock*) all employees and elect someone to represent them and work their grievances together and take them to the boss together so that the individuals don't feel singled out. It's the same reason why the UAAMWC was formed, and if we don't form an official group, I can assure you that the next time the community feels like its being mistreated, they will form another UAAMWC or a UPHPRD or some other group by some other name - only it won't be on Halopedia's forums, the admins won't know about it, and when it finally rears its ugly head, the admins will be blindsided and, as happened last weekend, we'd go from relatively peaceful to full scale uprising in under a week. Somehow, when I think about that scenario, this group doesn't feel like a waste of space. This allows the community to bitch at one another if they aren't listening, it requires the admins to do more in the communication department (which I STILL think is a failing point - case and point, the events of this evening) and this may enable the actual complaints of the community to be brought to us by the most reasonable members of the community, the ones who do understand the rules and are willing to listen to what the Cabal has to say. Honestly, I think it is an easier and cleaner arrangement and I think it is an inevitable arrangement. The question is not "should the UPHPRD exist?", the question is "should it exist within the framework of Halopedia?" -- forgottenlord 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * FL is right. This is why Labour Unions existed and still exist. And, do we really need you guys to be blindsided again? Oh, yes, and GPT you talk of us not reading, I've said several times to BLAME THE FRIGGIN UPRSISING OR WHATEVER IT IS PROBLEMS ON ME! Yet, the admins have ignored this request, blaming others.-- Canis Lupus</tt> [[Image:Wolf paw.jpg|20px]] - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 02:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgottenlord is right about what a labor union is for, but we don't have a big "you're fired" button, so the point is moot. Also, JWR, there's no reason to blame it on you, which is why I haven't done that yet. I am still strongly opposed to this usergroup--if you have a problem, come talk to us personally, privately, and peacefully; we can get more done like that than we can by making another group like this. Remember what happened last time? As forgottenlord says, that will just happen again "when it rears its ugly head." -- NOTASTAFF  GPT ( talk )( eating ) 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unions aren't just about firings. They're also about working conditions - something that does apply to a group like Halopedia. They're about trying to bring about greater understanding of the issues facing the workers - or the users, in our case, which I think is a problem right now. They're about a lot of things - not JUST about who's hired and who's fired and who gets paid what. Is the necessity level as high? No - one's ability to support his/her family is not based upon their participation on Halopedia, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad for our users to have a place to voice their dissent. -- forgottenlord 22:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * UAAMWC? -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 12:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The whole point of unions is moot, because one of the main weapons of a union is this thing called a strike, and I don't think that the entire community is going to strike if we don't get our way. If we want the admins to hear us, we can just message them. If we want them to really hear us, we can all message them. Striking would either result in a failer (since we can't effectively picket and stop scabs), or it would kill the site. Neither of those is really a positive outcome. Besides, how can we garuntee that the group represents our opinions. If my opinion differs from the UPHPRD, then I am damn well going to go straight to an admin, which basically defeats the purpose of the user group in the first place. We are a community, and we don't need some fancy user group to make decisions for us. If we want to make a decision, we'll vote on it just like this, and then the admins will look at it and make their own personal decision.-- Master Gunnery Sergeant   Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 05:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've messaged the admins, did they do anything? No. It's obvious they can't handle the community. Plus, this voting doesn't matter for any other subject. The only reason we can even vote on this is because the admins dug themselves a hole when they made RfU. When I made a complaint, it was completely brushed aside with little to no response. Admins, according to Wikia, decide all votes unless our policy defends against it. The community has no say on a wiki, admins do. I hate it, it's screwed up, but that's how the system works. One more point is, would you rather follow a bunch of unorganized complaints from over 100 people, or a organized report from a respected reprenstative. And even though majority should rule, FL, me, CR, and others discuss this and I will try to make sure all voices are heard by the admins.... or read anyway.-- Canis Lupus</tt> [[Image:Wolf paw.jpg|20px]] - The Pack - - Kill --  Join the Pack  - 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, /me adds himself to the list on JWR's post ;) -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 23:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you must remember, this is, when broken down into its simplest form, a forum of types. Admins are here to guide the site, we are here to provide content. If the admins are too hard, people leave. Therefore, the admins aren't too strict. But if the admins are too laid-back, the level of chaos increases. We're trading strict rule for chaos, so the admins have to find a happy medium. And what I am saying is that a council of a few would not be capable of representing everyone in the community any better than the administration. And due to the almost blindly faithful way people are willing to trust and vote for people, I think the usergroup would too easily be turned into just some group with a personal agenda. In fact, it doesn't really appear to be a usergroup so much as a committee you are suggesting, like the Fanon Art Committee. Its more likely that the community elects officials to represent it, rather than users joining a group to represent the community. If I must choose one or the other, I would rather someone qualified who had been elected represent me over the average forummer who just joined the group because it was there.-- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 03:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The admins don't give a crap if people leave, otherwise, they'd be better. And, we didn't say it'd be completely rulless, we can ban campaigning for representatives (if we have representatives) and all that, besides, the admins themselves have said, "We make the descicions." While, RR or GPT would put a vote for something like the MoH in the news bar, this usergroup would be completely ignored because people support it. We're playing by the rules and winning, that's it. If this was also considered a committee there would be no need for an RfU, we could just use loopholes, so even if this does fail, committees aren't mentioned in RfU policy, thus we don't need to use RfU if we create a commitee.-- Canis Lupus</tt> [[Image:Wolf paw.jpg|20px]] - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 05:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather see this group as not some sort of a committee, rather a group. I would also much rather not have this group as a behind the admins back sort of thing. That was tried and it failed, sort of. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) Please allow 24hrs for the second nomination to be made.  Thanks --forgottenlord 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC) moot point --forgottenlord 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) SPARTAN077 commented that this would give the users more power. To clarify, if formed, this group would have no authority over the administration; we would not be required to follow directives or suggestions made by them. However, as always, the community's views are of the utmost importance to us, and we will carefully consider anything put forward by this group. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, I mean that this group would give us a little say in stuff :) -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I have a question. Has a draft of policies been drawn up? If not, I think I can draw one up, and maybe it can be approved or something.... Anyway, I've drawn up usergroup policy before, so I'm volunteering to do so.-- Canis Lupus</tt> [[Image:Wolf paw.jpg|20px]] - The Pack - - Kill --  Join the Pack  - 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A draft has not been made to-date. --forgottenlord 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, lets look at the facts, 16 people want this usergroup and 3 people don't, I think we have a clear idea of the outcome -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 12:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But you say this usergroup is to represent the community, which consists of over 800 users. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 15:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets just say the 16 will represent them :) -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 20:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we don't have 800 users in the community. Sure, we have 800 accounts, but not every account is owned by someone who participates in the community.  Hell, how many accounts have less than 10 edits (including forum posts) and less than 10 seconds on IRC - would you count them as part of the community? --forgottenlord 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have 800 active users in the community. Statistics show that we have roughly 200 active users. I'm not arguing with the RfU policy, it was drafted by me to stop the creation of joke usergroups like the one aimed at improving all Halopedia's content. I'm saying, if you're going to argue that 20 or so users represent the whole community, you're wrong. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not look like a lot, but 3 out of 19 is nearly 16% of those who have voted. Now, considering the community, that's 126 who would disagree with the usergroup. More specifically, it has been stated that the usergroup needs an 80% majority vote to pass, and 20 votes in support. That means that if 20 vote in support and 5 against, it barely passes. Now, would someone be so kind as to point out to me the purpose of this usergroup? From what I can tell, its supposed to represent the community to the administration, something the community is fully capable of doing with a specific usergroup set aside to do it. To me, this seems more like a special interest group with an agenda that the community would blindly trust to support it to the admins. Furthermore, it would be impossible for the group to represent everybody, meaning that if someone disagreed with the group, they'd just go to the admin with their problem, rather than going through the group, which would completely nullify the purpose of the group. Basically, what I am saying is, we don't need a middle man. The community can communicate perfectly well with the administration without some group doing it for them.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 06:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's 2 out of 19, 077 never intended to vote against. Spacing has since been corrected on that matter. --forgottenlord 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason we have the "wait for 20 users to support" rule in place is so that usergroups don't just pop into existence because a couple of people think it's a cool idea. Wait for us to get our last two users before celebrating. --forgottenlord 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I Also get the bad feeling no one likes this idea simply because HBad made it...-- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Drops jaw)...that's a bit depressing... :( Well anyways, I don't think it's because I am on here...unless it is....oh and I didn't exactly think of this group. Although, if you are worried about me being in this group I want to tell you that it was previously determined that I would not be a leader of this group. This was agreed upon by me, not forcibly or anything like that. The reason I like this group is because 1. I believe it will help to unify the community better. So that we can all finally get along with each other, yes I know this sounds like a "Everyone can get along", well it is. That's how I believe. I am not voting for this group so that I can get power...powah...or whatever you want to say, I am voting for this group for the simple fact that 2. I believe in freedom of speech on a wiki. This group will allow for users to give feedback in a more organized and timely manner. Thanks, --H*bad (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) One thing that I do hate about Halopedia is that when we sit down to have a calm discussion everyone starts to argue -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

FL's Argument
Alright, let's start from the top. This group concept was started by me in the wake of the so-called Community Rebellion - the 24hr incident that nearly got Manticore fired from his Administrative position and GPT to nearly leave Halopedia. 4 members of Halopedia nearly left in the wake of the rebellion as heads began to roll over the events that caused the rebellion. The issues that had created the rebellion had existed for months, the rebellion was preventable, but NOTHING was done. Furthermore, nothing has been changed to-date except that the community has become ashamed of what happened and been more hesitant to act. In effect, we have started a cycle.

The UAAMWC, the source of the rebellion, was founded secretly and quietly because people got sick of the events happening in Halopedia and the way the admins acted. Discussions within the UAAMWC ranged from quiet cursing of all admins to suggestions of tossing some or all of the admins out to making a new Wiki that would compete with Halopedia on the subject of making a Halo Encyclopedia, one that would be better run and fairer to the community.

Seeing that this was a pattern created by the mindset held by both the administrators and the community separately, I went looking for a long-term solution - and seeing as how I was writing report after report for the Cabal, did the final study on the rebellion, and was working extensively and had the trust of both sides, I'd like to believe I understood what was going on here. It was my conclusion that this was an event that was going to happen again and that the biggest problem with this incident was that it was community against administrators.

This community has suffered the threat of possibly collapsing. Yes, that is a danger and I actually believe that there are some elements of this community that are so poorly run that they carry a major risk of collapsing the community and making people leave - and I have expressed this opinion to the admins and gotten the agreement of some of them that this is a possibility. So I looked for a solution. Right now, while people do speak with the admins, the relay is one-on-one and the admins normally discuss in singular with the individual or with a couple of people or with other admins. This may work well if these were one-shot problems, but they are regular occurances of considerable concern. What we need is for a system to go in place, one that the community is aware of and understands that is able to work with the admins, representing the community and with the awareness of the admins that they are representing the community and that it is agreed upon by the community that it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Furthermore, many issues do exist where it is individuals within the community think one rule or another is ridiculous, but when they actually start talking to people, they'll find out it isn't so ridiculous and that others agree with the way admins use these rules. By giving them a place where they can clearly bring their concerns to, we give them the ability to reason with other members and find out that perhaps the admins aren't out of line and it actually is a reasonable rule. I saw a log the other day where a user thought that saying Hello 4 times in a row was a reasonable thing to do and that being told by an admin that it was flooding was too strict. However, when he started talking to other individuals, he realized it wasn't so strict. I honestly believe that he thought the admin was being to strict and not listening to the reason behind the arguments because the admin was known for being too strict therefore he must be strict this time.

I truly believe that this group will be a great asset to a community so heavily divided and with so many concepts of "us vs the admins" in so many ways. I believe this community needs this group right now and I hope that with this group, we can make this community something that will no longer need this group anymore.

If that isn't a worthy goal, if that isn't a justification for this group, then there is no justification. You can either agree that it can possibly help or is worth trying to see if it brings better management of the community, or you can believe that it has no use or purpose and leave the system to whatever fate awaits it.

This should not be considered an offshoot of UAAMWC or a spawn of H*Bad. This is my idea, based upon both the successes and failures of UAAMWC and my previous government and forum management experiences, with further details worked out in cooperation of many individuals including RR, the UAAMWC members, and a handful of others, and nominated by Ryan and H*Bad because they were eligible to nominate. It is far from complete and there will be many details for the community to work out as a community to best represent the community and I hope that it can be given that chance.

--forgottenlord 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions/ Response to Forgottenlord
Well, what forgottenlord is saying is COMPLETELY True. I was in the UAAMWC and forgottenlord told me about this idea. When I first tried to found this group, an admin, (No names) said that the community did not advise the admin and the group was disbanded. I don't regret being in the UAAMWC; our goals were just in the eyes of the communty. There were things that were wrong and we wanted to fix them. But, we did it in the wrong way. Instead of sitting down with the admin, we did some really dirty stuff and went around thier backs. This group is THE way to keep that from happening again. Please consider this when you vote.

The Users Promoting Halopedia Policy Review Discussion is NOT about giving the users power. It is about getting the users a say in some policies that may be unfair or demmed unfair by the Community. For the Admin's sake, the Monitors of Halopedia ARE NOT the rulers of Halopedia. They just select featured articles. The Cabal, otherwise known as the Admin, ARE the rulers of Halopedia. This group cannot give the Community power, it is a way to keep things like the UAAMWC and the "Grunt Rebellions" down to a minimum. If this group does pass, the Community can write complaints on the Discussion page and we will talk to the admin about them on the IRC or on Halopedia. It is just a way to keep the Admin and the Community in Check. Thank You.

Sincerely,

AJ 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said, both of you.-- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal Passes
With 21 to 2, our proposal passes with over 80% approval, over 20 votes, and has stayed open for more than two weeks, but less than to months. So, this usergroup or whatever can be made.-- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 20:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How? Not one of the users who voted in support of the group has done anything about drawing up any sort of policy. This isn't just another group to improve a particular topic in Halopedia's articles, and from what I can tell all this group will do is "talk to the admins". Would someone care to elaborate? -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Manticore: UPHPRD isn't a user group. It should have been an Admin authorized group. The policies are currently being drafted and discussed. This whole thing has been in the works for some time now. AJ 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we are working on it. -- ChurchReborn 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have sent a charter draft to FL for approval.-- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, why did you send it just to him? -- ChurchReborn 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I got it too. -- AJ 03:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I got it too, it looks good. -- ChurchReborn 06:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see what this proposal looks like, I am sure that I will like it, but I would like to see just to get my own opinion about it. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How bout I just post it here......? If it's okay with FL and HBad, I wiil...-- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should, so other people can see it and give their opinions about it. -- ChurchReborn 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Overview/Group Charter
The Users Promoting Halopedia Policy Review Discussion is a Halopedia group with the focus of preventing user rebellions by encouraging organized debate between the administrators and the community. There shall be three representatives that are voted on every two months at the time the CoH elections are held, except in case of delay. The representatives exist to take the community's comments and allow a list of complaints/questions to be given to the admins. They shall aslo help mediate between unhappy users and admins through PEACEFUL conversation. They will act as advisors to admins when need be, as well. The first representative election will be as quick as possible to allow this group to function. The UPHPRD IS a usergroup, but it doesn't exist for the purpose of helping articles. UPHPRD is more of a Cabal Watch/Advisory Group, determined on helping troubled users with admin help, policy help, etc., as well as debating with the admins. There are NO ranks in this group, excluding representatives. ALL proposals and other such shall be on the discussion page of the UPHPRD. The place for people to put their complaints/questions to the admins is under the approriately marked section on this page. All members of the community are members of the UPHPRD, excluding IPs.

Voting/Nomination Rules

Breaking these rules will result from a ban from the race, either as a nominee or a voter.


 * Users cannot, under any circumstance, nominate themselves.
 * Users can make an opening statement on their nomination, to say what they'll do, state current issues, etc.
 * Campaigning, besides stating what you will do as an opening statement on your nomnination, is forbidden.
 * Only members of Halopedia can vote or nominate uers. No IPs.
 * In the event of a tie, the current representatives will break it.
 * Users can only vote ONCE, except when changing their vote.
 * The same representative may not serve more than FOUR times in a row.
 * Sock-puppets are STRICTLY forbidden.
 * While users can vote for whoever they like, it is encouraged they vote for the best person for the job. In other words, you are discouraged to vote for people strictly because they are popular.

(The Admin Complaint/Question bar should go here)

Comments
It's a start, but you've spent more time explaining how representatives will be elected rather than talking about what they will actually do. -- Manticore   Talk 06:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Gooooooooooood -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted) 13:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mant. I've added some more details on representatives.-- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you've described seems similar to Wikipedia's Mediation Committee. The most important difference is they elect their members internally; elections are voted on only by current mediators. Here, you're proposing another popularity contest type-vote. Undoubtedly, someone will be elected to this position merely because they frequent IRC and whinge a lot, not because they're the most qualified to conduct mediations.


 * I'm also a little unsure about the validity of this statement: "They will act as advisors to admins when need be, as well." I mean, if the representative proposes something stupid or that has far too many practical limitations, I'm sure as hell going to reject that recommendation (which as I said earlier, I'm not even required to follow). -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What Manticore is saying is true. I was almost elected General of the UoH because I was on the IRC a lot. I dropped out at the last moment after realizing that. The Charter does need more details to it and a better voting procedure. May I help? -- <font color="Red">The Sarge  [[Image:Marine Corp 1stSgt.jpg|25px]]<font color="Gold">Comm <font color="Red">CSV 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a proposed community group, you need noone's permission to edit the charter. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 00:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Manticore, what you say is true about the risks, but I believe it is a necessary risk for this group. The fact of the matter is that the group exists because of an incident that stemmed with people feeling they didn't have enough of a voice in how Halopedia is run.  Giving them a group without any actual powers that they can't elect in effect does nothing to stop this problem.  Furthermore, because they will have been elected with a platform of sorts, they will have the authority to speak on behalf of the community with the Cabal on a particular issue - really, that's the extent of their authority and it's an important authority.  By removing the election process, they are a powerless mediation group at risk of running into the same complaints that the Cabal and the MoH have run into of being corrupt, admin controlled components of the Halopedia Tyranny. --forgottenlord 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly this usergroup needs elected representatives. What I'm saying is the scope needs to be changed. This isn't an advisory group, it's a mediation group. You need to remove all references to this group advising the admins, because as a group or representative of this group, it won't any more than a normal user. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 04:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't it be both? And, let's think. The community has many ideas. Heck, it's hard talking one on one with that many people. So, the admins can't take in everything about the community. The representative can get this, and advise the admins with not only their mind, but with info about the community.-- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Overview
The Users Promoting Halopedia Policy Review Discussion is a Halopedia representative board that encourages organized negotiation between the Halopedian Community and the Halopedia Administrators. The Representative Board will be composed of three "Qualified" Halopedians which will be voted in by the Community at the same time as the CoH elections. The first of these elections will be held as soon as possible to prevent any delay in its function. In addition to the Board, there will be an Administer Representative/Contact to help the flow of information from the Administration to the Community and vise versa. This group exists primarily to keep Halopedians from rebelling and leaving Halopedia and to warn the Administrators when something has been done wrong in the eyes of the average Halopedian.

Community
For the Community: The UPHPRD does not control the admin in any way. The UPHPRD is an advisory group to keep the rebellions to a minimum and keep Halopedia functioning as normal. This group IS made to represent the community.

Administrators
The UPHPRD is not a threat to the Administrator’s power at all. It is just an Advisory Board to the so called “Cabal” to help them make wise choices and keep the community from rebelling.

Elections
Users must abide by the normal CoH election rules.

Special Qualifications:


 * Be active in the community.
 * Must be active on the IRC.[?]
 * A member of at least 2 usergroups[?].
 * Not have any past history of edit wars or having any association with a rebellion.


 * Note: First Draft

Comments

 * "The UPHPRD is an advisory group to keep the rebellions" --> suggest "keep" be changed to help keep (same with Administrators section)
 * "It is just an Advisory Board to the so called “Cabal” to help them make wise choices and keep the community from rebelling. "
 * Cabal is an unofficial term for the administrators. I would not recommend using it in the charter.  Also, you don't say what they are advising the administrators on.  I think that this group exists to bring problems that the community has about the way the Administrators do thing to the Administrators attention, and try to encourage improvements in methods, explanations and understanding for all parties.  Right now, it just says its an advisory board - but why is it advising the Cabal?  --forgottenlord 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I don't know where to go on this one.... either... I guess I'll see what the community thinks. Pretty good AJ.-- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, anyone registered to Halopedia can vote? That seems lopsided. Until next time, respect them Grunts. This is M  ø  u  s  e, squeaking out! 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Standard voting rules could be applied; at least 50 edits and a member for at least one month. However, if you're going to change the charter to reflect this (which you should), you'll need to review all the votes on this page; you can't have newly registered users being able to vote for the creation of this group but not being able to vote in representative elections. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is, I redo the charter to add a 50-mainspace edit minimum, and any vote from a user without 50 mainspace edits or having been around for at least a month should be removed? Until next time, respect them Grunts. This is M  ø  u  s  e, squeaking out! 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually check those votes on the CoH elections to make sure they've all been there a month and the like? The 50 edits I've heard of being checked a few times, but that's about it.  I, actually, don't have a problem with someone who's been here 3 days but quickly become a part of the community and gotten quite a bit of work done voting in usergroup elections.  Sure, it might be suspicious, but that's a different field of concern completely.  --forgottenlord 02:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did notice some users that just joined about 6 hours before vote in the CoH Elections... <font color="Red">The Sarge  [[Image:Marine Corp 1stSgt.jpg|25px]]<font color="Gold">Comm <font color="Red">CSV 02:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Not have any past history of edit wars" - Not a big fan of that rule. What if someone was reverting a non-constructive edit multiple times? 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, it should be something more like, "No history of using Rollback to end edit wars,". I'm pretty sure Mouse, AJ, and probably Manticore know what I mean.... -- <font color="Red">C R  00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An edit war is different from reverting vandalism, and the definition of non-constructive is vague and subjective. -- Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|20px|Manticore is a Halopedia administrator.]] Talk 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that just because we were once part of a rebellion, should we not be able to run. I mean, we have more experience with rebellions than anyone, right?-- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I came up with that rule because if there are fmr. Rebels in the group,then the Admin would be less likely to suppord the group <font color="Red">The Sarge  [[Image:Marine Corp 1stSgt.jpg|25px]]<font color="Gold">Comm <font color="Red">CSV 02:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that makes sense. -- <font color="Red">C R  05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember some of the proponents explaining the concept of this proposal to me, but in retrospect, I don't think I fully understand it anymore. I think a warning flag that raised in my head when I read this was that if there are "[former] members of the rebellion" involved in mediating relations between the administration and the community, and another aforementioned event occured, it would appear that these former members could very likely be active proponents of this 'rebellion', and thus place unfair pressure on the administration to 'go along' with this new 'rebellion'. Any further elucidations appreciated. Regards, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg <font color="#A9A9A9">TALK • <font color="A9A9A9">MESSAGE 06:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RR, we'll talk.
 * As for the Rebellion rule.....I'm somewhat hesitant to agree with this point. The major reason for this is because so many of the active members of the community were a part of the rebellion and I actually don't have a problem with, say, one member of that rebellion being part of the council - after all, the members in the rebellion are a portion of the community and should be able to have their opinions represented.  Certainly, if all members of the Council are former-rebels, we have a problem and there are certainly some members of the former rebellion (my list now has two names, some of you know who both of them are) who I think it would be downright dangerous to have them on the council and likely would get the council ignored.  I just don't know.
 * As for the usergroup requirement, I really don't get that one. One's work in usergroups will (hopefully - I'm dreaming, but still) have a degree of impact on how many votes they get.  With that being the case, it becomes an implicit bonus.  At the same time, someone who fails this requirement can just stick their name on the CoH and UoH page and boom, they meet the requirement in a flash.  --forgottenlord 18:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As for all of you, I appreciate the feed back, I am revising the Charter right now. <font color="Red">The Sarge  [[Image:Marine Corp 1stSgt.jpg|25px]]<font color="Gold">Comm <font color="Red">CSV 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * sniff* I feel so worthless...like I'm not doing anything for the usergroup I love --A sad man

Overview
The Users Promoting Halopedia Policy Review Discussion (UPHPRD) is a Halopedia representative board that encourages organized negotiation between the Halopedian Community and the Halopedia Administrators, better known as the Cabal. The Representative Board will be composed of three Qualified Halopedians which will be voted in by the Community at the same time as the CoH elections. The first of these elections will be held as soon as possible to prevent any delay in its function. In addition to the Board, there will be a Representative, appointed by the Administration, to be a part of the UPHPRD to ease the information into the Administration. This group exists primarily to keep Halopedians from rebelling and leaving Halopedia and to warn the Administrators when something has been done wrong in the eyes of the average Halopedian.

Community
For the Community: The UPHPRD does not control the admin in any way. The UPHPRD is a group for the Community to voice its opinion about current rules, regulations, and happenings to keep the rebellions to a minimum and keep Halopedia functioning as normal. This group IS made to represent the community.

Administrators
The UPHPRD is not a threat to the Administrator’s power at all. It is just a group for the Community to voice its opinion about regulations, rules, and happenings to the Administration to help them make wise choices and to help keep the community from rebelling.

Elections
Breaking these rules will result from a ban from the race, either as a nominee or a voter.


 * Candidates must abide by the already set Covenant of Halopedia Election rules.

Other Rules

 * Candidate must be an ACTIVE community member
 * No more than two Council members may have been members of a previous rebellion.
 * Reason: Fmr. Rebellion Members know the workings of one (A Rebellion) better than a user who hasn’t been in one.

Comments
Perhaps it should be reworded "No more than two Council members may have been members of a previous rebellion." --forgottenlord 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That does make it clearer, reworded. <font color="Red">Don't Mess With The Sarge  [[Image:Marine Corp 1stSgt.jpg|25px]]<font color="Gold">My Comm Line <font color="Red">Where I've Fought 15:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw this out there, but how do people know if people were in a rebellion or not? 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the only user rebellion was the UAAMWC... and I know who was in it... <font color="Red">Don't Mess With The Sarge  [[Image:Marine Corp 1stSgt.jpg|25px]]<font color="Gold">My Comm Line <font color="Red">Where I've Fought 00:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible we won't catch minor players in rebellions in the future, but the major players, the ones that do present the greatest risk of forming a new rebellion and got the most experience in organizing the rebellion are unlikely to be missed - either by the Cabal or the larger portion of the community --forgottenlord 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Elections
UPHPRD elections are up and running! Please, come out and nominate/vote!

http://halopedian.com/Halopedia:UPHPRD/Elections/First_Term

Deletion
The UPHPRD is up for deletion. Vote here: Halopedia Talk:UPHPRD -- Canis Lupus</tt>  - The Pack - - Kill - -  Join the Pack  - 04:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion!!!??? What Heresy is this? -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted) 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It has already been deleted. -- <font color="Black">A <font color="Black">J [[Image:ArmyJROTC.jpg|20px]] 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)