Forums: Index Usergroups
Note: This topic has been unedited for 700 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I know I have brought up this subject before, but from recent events I am now going to again ask for a vote to determine if we ought to have usergroups. A minimum of at least two. These usergroups would be doing different tasks.

  • Creating a group wide RP
  • Keeping all of the members fanon's up to date.
  • And anything else that is brought up during this discussion.

My observations have brought me to my opinion that user groups would help the community grow and up the standard of fanon. These groups would lead by example and become leaders on Halo Fanon to help all users in need of help. Each usergroup though is also given a special task for itself and its own promotion standards.

  • Example: Group one would have the job of making important policy pages that they feel would be needed. After they say, okay we like this, the admins will look over it and then have their own vote.
  • Another example would be general helping of the community, making sure that all Fanon meet standards, this group will mainly be focusing on Standards and not official policy stuff. They may still submit ideas, but it must go onto the other usergroups page. Also, they will be in charge of the User's Fanon of the Month, which is what I am considering for the user vote for a fanon of the month, which is still separate from the fanon of the month that the admins vote in.

These are just some ideas, feel free to submit other ideas.

Both groups will be in charge of keeping the peace and making sure everyone gets along, but they must not over step the proper civility policy that was created by RelentlessRecusant.

I know that I have not informed the admins about this, but none were on to talk about this and thus I felt compelled to talk about this. If you feel that an email is in order I will send one immediately following my reading of you wanting an email.

This is just to be able to have the ability to give charters to usergroups and to see if anyone actually want usergroups.


For (7)

  • per what I said above. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • Yeah why not...hope this won't turn out like CAF... 5ub7ank(7alk)

The Soldier The Best 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It may be worth seeing the outcome. HaloDude 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea because its about time we sort out some standards for fanon! The parkster Comunications Contributions 07:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah...just what we need...another CAF...I'LL give it a try though... SPARTAN-118
  • Yeah, sure why not. Only to test the admins.--Kebath 'Holoree 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Against (8)

  • Call me blunt but aren't both of these pointless? A usergroup to make up policies? The admin team looks over any policy idea a member raises anyway. Why would people need to join a group to do that? A group to go around improving fanon and get it to meet standards? Isn't that what alot of members do anyway? Am i the only person who sees no point to these groups? <Death to Heroes>[The Damned] [The Lost][The Forgotten]|Deus Ex Ajax
  • I said those were examples, not actual groups. Those were just something that came out of the top of my head. Besides I am sure that we can defiantly think of other ideas. This isn't for the charter of both of those groups, this is just to be able to even have the ability to give charter to usergroups that want to be official Halo Fanon usergroups. I shall make that clear in the statement above. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • These user group ideas but forward are though, in all honesty, pathetic. Most of its stuff with no point or has been put forward before. And why do we need a charterto put forward a group? Somebody suggests an idea, we decline on wether its trash or accept if it isn't. It all seems very, very pointless <Death to Heroes>[The Damned] [The Lost][The Forgotten]|Deus Ex Ajax
  • Okay those where just ideas that just came out of my head at the second I was writing that statement above. Halopedia does it and it works. This is to make sure that we don't have an excess of user groups. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To create a few unions of users under a cause. To make it so that people of Halo fanon can be able to work together and make this place happier. In fact it would bring more appeal to people. I mean just look at how much they have done on Halopedia. You notice that the Usergroups are very popular things and I believe that since we share most of our users, then that very popularity will bring it self over to here. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • Why not give this a try? I mean it's something that could bring the community together. It would be a great experiment. Plus remember that we already have on, non-official usergroup called the CAF. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • Before we get into the actual argument, I would like to point out, again, H*bad, that you do have all of our emails, and could have emailed us before putting forward another idea. As before, I don't see the usefulness of usergroups. Should members have to be in a usergroup to suggest policies or clean up articles? No. I'm not really overly fond of the usergroups at Halopedia, to be honest. There was more controversy over them than articles getting cleaned up, by a long shot. And usergroups raise the problem of classism. People already regard admins as better than normal users, which is not true, but now throw in usergroups with rank systems and the like, and you've got a whole new issue. People don't need to be in groups to better the community. If you'd like, we could use categories to mark articles that need cleaning up, but I don't see the usefulness in usergroups.--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Come to find out, I couldn't of emailed you guys at the time anyways. Now my email is working, since I did send you guys an email yesterday, late yesterday which is when it started to work. My email provider, Charter, goes down from time to time. Yeah, 99.8% upage time my bottom...anyways, the usefulness would be community togetherness. Again, those ideas were just things that came out of my head at the moments notice. We already have ideas that are coming out, just look down below. Also, if it turns into something like a new hierarchy, then we can just delete them and give a reason. Also how would it turn into that? Remember that there will be positions on them that must be changed out every few months, meaning no dictatorship or whatever you would like to call it. We have a non-official usergroup called the CAF. That seems to be working out without any hierarchy or whatever you want to call it. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • You could have messaged us on the site, telling us to get on IRC. You could have created a free Gmail account. You could have waited for your email to come back up. This wasn't so urgent that you had to bypass us all again. And while I understand the examples were just from your head and not final, I'd like to see practical examples before I would even consider voting for the project. If this goes through, I want it to be thought out first. Further, the CAF does have a heirarchy system, including four different classes of ranks for a total of fourteen ranks.--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What about the ones that are in the ideas section? Also, can I propose to you guys that are going against, to allow a trial version. If it doesn't work, then we pull the plug. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • The usergroups suggested in the ideas are interconnected fan fiction universes, which would be exclusive and is unnecessary, and usergroups to clean up race specific articles, which falls under your suggestion of a usergroup to clean up articles, which was already shot down.--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM 00:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We still can make a trial run. You haven't given any reason why we can't just do that. If we have the proper guidelines. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • I will be willing to agree to a trial if and only if I can see a noteworthy example. At the present time, it feels like we're trying to make usergroups simply because Halopedia has them. You don't need usergroups to become closer with your fellow users here. You can do that simply through initiative. And if I see a usergroup that actually has some sort of merit, I will agree to a trial, and nothing more than a trial, that we might evaluate the usergroup. And even if I find the trial usergroup to be favorable, I will vote against full implementation unless the moderation team discusses the matter privately first.--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM 01:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay well I believe that I have found one that we can use for a trial version. I will speak with the users that are right now involved in this trial version and tell them exactly how everything is going to go down. We can speak on xray bravo lima or other means, which ever you prefer. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • Email is going to be the easiest way to communicate. I don't like mixing politics and leisure too much. But you talk as if this trial is already a set thing. I will move any "official" trial usergroups to usernamespace until what time that the administration has discussed it. There are three bureaucrats here, and you are only one. You don't have the authority to go over our heads and just make official projects, especially when we both have expressed dislike for the project. There will be no official trial until either Relentless or I (since you only need one of us to agree to have majority) am convinced that there is any promise in the project, and I have already laid out what it will take to get me to agree.--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM 05:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am doing it under a subpage don't worry. I don't want you guys down my throat. haha. Anyways, I will be sure that everything goes how you want, right now though I am busy with school, but soon I won't be and it will start up. Thanks for your concern, H*bad (talk)
  • You don't see the potential in this? I am certain that this will be a good idea. Obviously it works if the CAF is able to run, so I know that this will work. This also isn't to create another user group, but to make it so that we can vote on usergroups. First we have to find out if people are wanting to be able to vote and then we can have a vote for usergroups. Usergroups would bring more interest into the wiki and thus expand the community. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • The first proposed usergroup's practical intention I can't discern. Usergroups aren't supposed to start RPs. That's for users or teams of users to come up with. And to be frank, we have more than enough RPs. Updating fanon isn't a usergroup responsibility either. It's up to individual authors to update their own fanon. As for the second idea, attempt for usergroups to co-opt administrator responsibilities on Halopedia have been quite fairly vehemently rejected for good reason -- the whole point of administrators isn't for a large pool of users to make decisions. Or else, why doesn't Wikipedia have billions of administrators instead of the several thousand sysops it has now? As as per Rotaretilbo -- an admin "team" is not a team nor cohesive without communication, and it seems again you've bypassed your fellow administrators and bureaucrats in coming forth with another audacious proposal. Regards, RelentlessRecusant 'o the Halopedia Team GDI2.jpg TALKMESSAGE 23:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I propose to you guys that are going against, to allow a trial version. If it doesn't work, then we pull the plug. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  • How about a trial version, this way we can see if this system works, if not then we pull the plug? Thanks, H*bad (talk)
  1. Hell no. This is a wiki, not a social networking site. Usergroups are pointless on a Fanon wiki, an excuse to hold useless ranks amongst each other and cause friction. Halo Fanon's already laughed at by the wider Wikia world, we should be trying to fix this and not dig ourselves in further. Darthtomsig iChat What I've done 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral (3)

03:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)



Heres an idea I've been thinking about for a while: connected article group. When you join, you get a template placed on all your articles saying that "this article is connected and shares the same "universe/canon" as all other articles with this tag". This also means that there can be no two articles of the same name in the group. If two people join at the same time, or nearly the same time, maybe like a buffer of a week or so, then the better article is included, and the other one is not. Just a thought.

Spartan 501 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's interesting, perhaps if creating Usergroups become allowed it might get a charter to be created. I can't say whether or not if it will or anything. Thanks, H*bad (talk)

This is an excellent idea, i get quite annoyed, personally, when i find five or six different pages of the same name (a bit like all of the Spartan 4 programmes!). Also my idea; will these user groups have themes? They would still have the main roles (standard checking, policy making, etc...) but could they be like the CAF but different factions? I wouldn't mind putting the CN]] up for a user group. I could make the ranks and be one of the leaders. You could do one for the Forrunners or Precuroereuoers whatever it is, or even the flood or hydra? This would make the user groups a lot more intersting and i'm willing to help. I think that these user groups should be accepted via the community vote rather than the admin vote, also. Thanks for reading! The parkster Comunications Contributions 07:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hydra do not need a usergroup. They're out of there. --MCPO James DavisLOMI HQI here your criesMay your works be honorable
14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Idea: A Usergroup based off of the UoH/CoH only 3 High Ranking officers and 2 secondary officers to come to power in case of emergency. Each user can chose what species they want to be(Human or Elite). Every user has the same rank at first.(Minor Domo or Pvt.) My next point, 2 Representives, 1 from each species. Their job, Represent the lower ranks and give the promotion requests to the High Ranking officials. But they first need a reason for the promotion. Which brings me to my next point, No one can become a general because "I WANT GENRAL CUZ I R AWESOME!!11!!!". Thats just stupid. If this idea goes go through, I will be one of the High-Ranks as will 2 other very qualified users. The Mid-Ranks will not be assigned until the first "Election For Positions". And every user has the same rights. No admins can just waltz in as a Private and automatically become a High-Rank official, It doesn't work like that. (Ajax, this is just an example no offense) Lets say Ajax comes and joins as Private/Minor Domo and says he deserves a promotion for past articles written. "My articles are good, I think i deserve a promotion." Yes you do, But your articles are before the user group started therefore they aren't worth the same as fresh articles. Those are what improve the wikia, not past articles. Thank you for your time.
The Data The Database The Soldier The Best 04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

........Shotty Grunt.....also shotty some abstract form of power in what ever this turns out to be......anti-dibs enabled...and HAIL FSM! Just Another GruntConverse 07:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And in English, that would be? The parkster Comunications Contributions 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

.....never mind....I wasnt totally here last night........btw, is it possible for us to trial this system? see if we like it, make sure it actually works before we rest upon it? Just Another GruntConverse 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. In fact I would be all for it. Thanks, H*bad (talk)

Sounds good. You going to give a final overview (what's going to happen during the trial run <cough> my idea </cough>). That way we know. Anyway the vote was pretty unanimous so i think you need to just go for it. Hopw it works: The parkster Comunications Contributions 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines Example

Usergroup guidelines

Usergroups must be founded by a group of users

The purpose of a usergroup is to unite a section of the users, ergo it is called a "usergroup." One-user usergroups are counter-productive. Each Usergroup must be founded by at least 2 Users.

Usergroups must have a charter

Each usergroup must have a purpose that contributes constructively to Halo Fanon. Usergroups must have an organizational charter on their group page, and a central theme that clearly dictates what the usergroup was created to do and how it will be accomplished. The usergroup's organizational structure must also be clearly stated with how at least the top leadersip position is elected.

Usergroups must be open to everyone

Any user, regardless of other group affiliations, should have equal opportunity to join a usergroup; usergroups should be cooperative, not competitive.

Those are just some good examples for What Usergroups will do and how they will become a Usergroup. Yes I know that I stole most of it from Halopedia, reworded it, and placed it here, but it still works perfectly for Usergroups on here. Thanks, H*bad (talk)

Major Problem

No this issue has been going on for a while and noe H*Bad has gone this whole thing needs a yes or a no. I'm pretty busy at the moment and so i'm turning my vote to against the topic. We really don't need these and no one will ever use them. So what's going to happen?

Libra Icon
The parksterLibra Team - Fermamentum Pondera
TALK CONTRIBUTIONS Australian Eastern Summer Time (GMT+11)

This forum was dead until someone went and pulled it from the pit. --MCPO James DavisLOMI HQI hear your criesMay your works be honorable
18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes the phrase "pit" may indicate the topic's popularity!

Libra Icon
The parksterLibra Team - Fermamentum Pondera
TALK CONTRIBUTIONS Australian Eastern Summer Time (GMT+11)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.