Forum:Bringing Back the Usergroups

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki

Forums: Index → Archive → Bringing Back the Usergroups
Monaco.png
UPDATED
Please read updates and edit your opinions.

Greetings Halopedians. Kougermasters, General5 7, Halo-343, and Smoke. present to you a proposal to reestablish the Halopedia Usergroups.

Introduction

The Usergroups first started out as the Covenant of Halopedia (CoH), quickly followed by the UNSC (UoH or UNSCoH), Ancients (AoH), and Gamers (GoH) of Halopedia.

Their purpose was simple; the CoH would take care of the Covenant-related pages; the UoH would monitor the UNSC-related pages; the AoH the Forerunner and Flood pages, and the GoH the game-related articles. In addition, all the usergroups featured an individual ranking system based on their respective factions so that the members could progress, mainly by the amount of edits they had. For quite a long while, everything went well. Then, in early 2009, usergroup activity began to rapidly decrease, until it reached an all-time low.

One problem was that many users signed on to join, and just as quickly, left. This caused a large mess on the members page, and made it very disorganized and cluttered. Groups leaders attempted to counter this, and other problems, to no avail. Another problem was that more users became focused on progressing through the ranks, not the pages themselves, which was essentially what the points system we have is for. Less and less progress was being made on the pages the usergroups were made for, and productivity declined. When the usergroups were disbanded in July 2009, group activity was basically zero.

Proposal

Now, however, Halopedia faces a new problem. To quote Kougermasters, "Halopedia has A LOT of articles to maintain. It may look shiny and perfect on the outside, but it's rotten to the core with bad articles." There are many articles that lay forgotten and messy that could be fixed if the usergroups were brought back. Take the game-related articles (maps, gametypes, achievements, glitches, etc.) as an example; they are terribly messy. The Gamers of Halopedia, if brought back with a more effective system than last time, could change that. And with Halo: Reach fast approaching, there's going to be possibly hundreds more articles, and a lot more work to be done. A large group of determined and hard-working users concentrating on their faction could make everyone's jobs easier.

Of course, we have to learn from our mistakes. Bringing back the usergroups as they were before will solve nothing. We are proposing a possible list of requirements to join a usergroup. (Remember, these are just examples, and are not finalized.)

  1. At least 200 edits on mainspace pages.
  2. Must have been active and editing on Halopedia for one month prior to joining a usergroup.
  3. If a user has been inactive for at least three weeks without a proper excuse, they shall be removed.
  4. Must not have any history of vandalism, or any other serious infringement of Halopedia's Guidelines and Policies.

Due to recent enlightenment, we have decided to change the aspect of our proposal. Instead, we are opting to abolish the rank system of the usergroups, as they are too competitive and lessen the effects of the usergroups. In the place of the ranking system, we are proposing something similar to the WikiProjects on Wikipedia (for more info, see here). To sum it up, "A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work". Each usergroup will basically be a WikiProject on their respective faction.

We are also considering keeping the leaders part of the usergroups, as without leaders, the group would be very unorganized. The leader(s) would be chosen via elections, and would hold their title for two months, at the most. A week before they were to be replaced, a new election would begin. The leaders are responsible for upholding the above requirements and for finalizing any other proposals, etc. There would also be a list of requirements, which can be seen below. Like before, these are not permanent.

  1. At least 600 edits on mainspace pages.
  2. Has been in the usergroup for at least one month (of course, when the usergroups first begin, this requirement would be pointless...)
  3. No history of vandalism or rule-breaking.

In addition, the ranking system has been slightly rethought to counter users simply making useless edits just to promote themselves. If a user wishes to be promoted (or join, for that matter), providing they have a required minimum number of edits for their next rank, they may submit a request for promotion to the Leaders of that particular Usergroup, as before. The Leaders will then review that user's edits, judging by quality over quantity, and if the said Leaders agree that the user in question has proven themselves in the quality and productiveness of their edits, they will promote the user. Generally, ranks will stay the same, as will the overall idea of promotion requests. We are also considering the idea of "competitions" involving the usergroups. Hopefully, these will combat the excessive amount of users that sign on.

In the case of the acceptance of this proposal by the Administration and general public of Halopedia, it would be prudent to hold a leadership election before or immediately following the re-instatement of the usergroups. Kougermasters is willing to take on the responsibility of co-leading the Covenant of Halopedia, as per the last election and his prior interest, and the Gamers of Halopedia, since he is an avid Halo gamer himself, and feels that he has much to contribute to such a task as maintaining the gaming articles of Halopedia.

In conjunction with the MOS, the usergroups could make great progress on Halopedia, and bring it back up to its former glory. Remember Halopedians, this is your decision, for without you, usergroups are nothing.

Thanks for reading!
Signed,
  General5 7    talk    contribs    email  

Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits)

Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits)

SmokeSound off!

PS: We will be open to any suggestions or ideas you have, so feel free to speak your mind.

Voting

Support (19/3)

  1. Support.svg Support - As per our proposal above. --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   00:36, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support.svg Support - SmokeSound off! 00:40, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support.svg Support - Hell yes. The Gamers of Halopedia will have their return! - Scot 113
  4. Support.svg Support - As per proposal above. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 00:45, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support.svg Support CF001 02:24, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support.svg Support - The usergroups always seemed like a good idea, and I don't really understand why inactivity merits deletion. If I was to join a usergroup, that wouldn't stop me from editing other pages, too.--Fluffball Gato 03:03, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support.svg Support - I was always a big fan of the usergroups, I was disappointed to see them go. Hopefully with these new rules and standards in place, the usergroups can be more productive this time. Col. Snipes450 05:02, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support.svg Support - Belatedly, as per above proposal. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 08:18, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support.svg Support - A great way to get involved and excited about editing. - S.B.44 [Talk] 16:45, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support.svg Support - As per the proposal above. EtErNiTy92 Revolution! 22:40, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support.svg Support - The usergroups were great. Disbanding them was dumb, so this is only appropriate. - SNES Lover
  12. Support.svg Support - All the people opposing are stating that "It would become inactive and fare the same as the old usergroups." and "Editors who pop up, edit for a month or less then leave the wiki would crowd the usergroups." Only users who have had 200 edits would be able to join a group, that doesn't sound like users who would become inactive or leave after a short period of time!Sergeant JimMy Stacker 06:37, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support.svg Support- Lol@Phailure 23:48, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support.svg Support - --Odysseas-Spartan53 10:36, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Support.svg Support - Ultra Force 17:39, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
  16. Support.svg Support-User:S-058 these new requirements should prevent the Usergroups from becoming what their predescessors were.
  17. Weak Support.svg Support - I still find the premise fundamentally flawed, but users do need to organize in group projects. I just urge the hierarchal structure to be removed. --Dragonclaws(talk) 03:02, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
    Oh yes, since the proposal has been formulated, we have decided to remove ranks and almost every trace of a hierarchal structure, though I'm not sure if we're keeping leaders, I haven't been that well informed. Speaking of which, I must get around to rewriting part of the proposal to fit said changes. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 14:21, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
  18. Support.svg Support-I would like to propose that all willing, active users will have their ranks restored. I see this as being essential to maintaining hierarchy immediatly after recreation of the groups. Dragonblaze-052 20:37, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
  19. Support.svg Support Mr. Emile, 200 edits is nothing compared to the work of the admins. I support as per the usergroups rocked. - —This unsigned comment was made by EliteMaster117 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
  1. Support.svg Support - putting the usergroups back is a great idea. as per main statement, with halo reach coming up just around the corner, putting up the GoH again would make the page for halo reach a great success TickToXsiK 02:32, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
    User does not meet voting requirements. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 14:06, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support.svg Support-User:Emile-A249The disbanding of the usergroups was a step in the wrong direction.They must return.However,200 edits is a bit much. 21:30, June 19, 2010(UTC)
    User does not meet voting requirements. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117
  3. Support.svg Support i believe that this is a good idea. even if the usergroups at a low point, it would give at least a few users incentive to edit articles.User:Theelitefan/Sig
    User does not meet voting requirements. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 22:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (4/0)