Forum:Improving Criteria for CDWC

Hello! I'm putting this up on the request of Doc.Richtofen, to talk about the criteria for the CDWC, which right now is 500 main space edits. The problem is that some people Don't always help through main space edits, they might help with templates/Filespace/forums. A good example of a user who helps out people out alot, without too many main space edits is Rosechu. So we think that the requirement should be tweaked a tad so people who legitimately contribute can be apart of CDWC Here's an example of what it /might/ be: "1000 MS/WR/Template edits" to join CDWC? Leave some variations or suggestions!

- 10:52, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I think COD:IAR is sufficient in circumstances like this. Shotrocket6 10:54, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really to the point where you ignore You MUST acquire 500 mainspace edits. 10:56, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * But really, how often do we have cases like Rosechu? If they're known by the community, then IAR can be applied. Shotrocket6 10:58, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think AEAE would apply when accepting people into a usergroup such as the CDWC. 11:12, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But even at that, the most we'd need to to is change "You must acquire 500 mainspace edits on this wiki" to "You must acquire 500 mainspace edits on this wiki or have contributed in another space efficiently." Shotrocket6 11:16, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing this would be a permanent change to the requirements of joining, which is a very noticeable difference in how it currently operates, it needs a consensus in my opinion. 11:40, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose. The best proposal is to change requirements to "500 edits to main, Call of Duty Wiki, file, template, category, and forum spaces." Shotrocket6 11:43, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would like to wait and see what other people think about it first before it goes to a vote or something like that. 11:48, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Shotrocket6 11:56, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kat, I appreciate the favour. I am unclear of your "best proposal", do you mean 500 edits split between all of those areas or 500 each? If so I completely agree, and perhaps once enough users have made input on the forum we can have a vote to reach consensus. While we are on the issue I would like to see a rise in the amount of edits needed to gain membership to the CDWC. A few months ago, the requirement was risen fairly dramatically. This was to prevent a large influx of users joining without putting in that much effort to gain their reward. If the number were to be kept the same with a change, but more passageways are opened, the same problem that was encountered before will occur again. If there is to be a change, which I believe there should, the number of edits needing to be aquired must rise. Doctor out. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 13:42, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for a smaller edit (not necessarily just mainspace) requirement and maybe throw in an account age requirement as well - something like 1 to 3 months with more emphasis on the account age - the CDWC isn't about editing, it's about community after all. 13:45, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to throw in an age account requirement as well, three months sounds apropriate. Would you rather 3 months age or 3 months active? On top of that, I understand the CDWC is about community. However, it is also a reward and a target for new users to apsire to. It can also be used to stimulate activity in key areas of the wiki. The CDWC is about community, and if you aren't editing or showing commitment, are you really part of the community? I also don't believe that raising it will greatly make an effect. Those that want to be part of it will either set their minds to the task or accomplish the criteria anyway. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 13:59, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * 2 or 3 months with a reasonable amount of activity would be nice, yes. 16:07, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 750 MS/Temp/File would be best. 00:48, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * We are agreed then. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 20:02, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

We got rid of the 3 months requirement a while ago, why not make it 6 months of productivity or 750 MS/Template/File like Philly just said? 01:32, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with the or is that people could just sit and wait instead of putting in any effort to the community. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 09:14, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Would you all agree that main, Call of Duty Wiki, file, template, category, and forum spaces would be acceptable? Shotrocket6 10:29, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say forum space because of Watercooler and the events. But I'm fine with the rest. 10:57, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * While that is true, it would be difficult to accumulate a lot of forum edits just by hanging out in the watercooler; forums for events also only come up once in a blue moon. Shotrocket6 11:35, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think that any edits can be counted. Blog comments show integration into the community, and since the CDWC is a community thing, why not throw blog comments into the mix as well? I think the borderline should be something flat like 200 edits not 200 main, file, template and category edits. 13:39, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point, although admission through blog comments could lead to blog spam. Maybe we could have people looking out for this. Also, would you include talk page edits? I like your proposal, the problem is 200 is way too small. Even keeping at its current edit count requirement is too low for these changes, let alone if it were dropped by 250%! TheDocRichtofen ( Talk  ) 14:08, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point, Callofduty4, but I think that if we do introduce the ability to get into the CDWC through other namespaces, we should up the editcount requirement at least a bit, asy 600 or 700, perhaps. Shotrocket6 00:58, February 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * ^This, although I would probably go for a 750 requirement. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 09:00, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Far too much emphasis on editing. Cut it down to 200-250. 12:11, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we've got two conflicting opinions which aren't gonna get resolved. I say we put it to consensus? TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 21:03, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Doc stated earlier that it's supposed to be an award. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but if that's the case, the edit requirement should remain high. Shotrocket6 03:02, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * It never originated as one, but over time has become something to be desired. See here. With this in mind, what I'm saying is it would also induce increased levels of editing in wherever the requirements allow. This also means he could change flow of edits on particular areas. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 17:48, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should definitely keep the edit requirement at a simple number that encompasses a number of spaces. Separating the numbers too much would cause a lot of confusion. Shotrocket6 10:13, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm just wondering if we put a proposal up for vote soon. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 10:19, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see what everyone else wants to do first. Shotrocket6 10:48, February 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * That was kind of me putting in a line to judge people's reaction. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 16:52, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think new criteria should be like "u can haz join, but if u get bann0red on wiki/be a dick den you get da bewt." 09:57, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in addition to the editcount requirement? Because I think that's how it already is. Shotrocket6 10:12, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a joint edit count instead of simply MS. If we incorporate Blog comments into the count, I would like to see it at a fairly high number like 800-1000, as accumulating around 200 blog comments in a month is fairly easy. If Blog comments are excluded, a number like 250-500 total edits not including blog comments would be a good rough start. 03:34, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the general opinion now is that we should include other spaces. Shotrocket6 04:39, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * 1337's idea is pretty good. I like it. Especially about incorporating the blog comments or not, I feel that we should go that way.
 * 05:04, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed it looks like the general opinion is to include other spaces. There are also two issues which pop up. Do we include blog comments? And then how many edits are needed? Once these questions are answered we can begin to make a change. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 09:15, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I propose we do not allow blog comments. Rarely do any users make blog comments that actually contribute something to the well-being of the wiki. Shotrocket6 13:32, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

^This. It should only be spaces which contribute to the wiki itself. So that leaves MainSpace, War Room, Template & Category edits I think. TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 13:40, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Callofduty4 had a good point about blog comments, though. Basically any action shows community activity. Shotrocket6 07:07, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know he does. This is difficult once again. I think it may be a good idea to put the issues to vote one by one so we can put the pieces together. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 10:29, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we make a big voting section for each of the spaces, where each user votes once for each one? Shotrocket6 15:52, February 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. But first do you think it would be a good idea to vote on if people want change first? TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 16:11, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Shotrocket6 16:14, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

^Doc's idea sounds good. 17:56, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

If we do go with a MS/Template & Category/ and War Room edit count then the question is on what should the limit be?07:13, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Establishing a vote
In order to move along, we'd like to propose a vote to change the requirements for the CDWC. However, before we vote on that, it'd be a appropriate to take a preliminary poll on who would like to see some change. Shotrocket6 16:14, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 18:42, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 19:55, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:58, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Shotrocket6 03:05, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 03:42, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13:12, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13:20, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 21:39, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
What would happen to the people who are on the CDWC and when the requirements change they can't be in it? Will they be kicked out or no?18:48, February 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just as the last time there was a change, all users currently a member of the CDWC will retain membership even if the changes push them outside of the bracket. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 19:00, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. We cannot possibly revoke somebody's membership that is already in the CDWC as of old requirements. Shotrocket6 02:56, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Voting Finished: Change Is To Be Made To CDWC - TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 16:16, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Change Option 1
Please sign on the name spaces you wish to be included in the requirements for the CDWC.

Mainspace

 * TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 16:16, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

War Room

 * TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 16:16, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Category & Template

 * TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 16:16, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Any and All

 * 17:59, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 18:05, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 18:07, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 18:17, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, well known by the community, or a dedicated helper and the whole nine yards like that. Cool. 21:42, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 22:33, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 22:41, February 22, 2012 (UTC) I believe that all edits should account for CDWC (although I do have my doubts for userpages).