This forum is a policy discussion page and will likely be locked when policy is established. Please add to the discussion freely. This is a forum page so there are no rules. Please sign all posts with 4 tildes. (copy/paste this if you do not have a tilde key: ~~~~)

Option One

To Serve and Protect

as the looming dawn of blands 2 approaches it is my intention to lock ^(edit) by hand and individually or at the very least 'members only' all blands t.o.g. pages. if you disagree with this action now is the time to say so. new (real) editors and RCs wont have time to be troll chasing and snot wiping on the established pages when the feces impacts the rotary oscillator.   Dr. F            22:11, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

I read a forum post recently that mentioned global soft protection by revoking certain access rights from a user group - I wish I could find it now. The method described was to contact Central and request a change. This might be granted, but will also need a blog post for the community to ratify the decision, and that would have to run for a week or two. This has been implemented on the Marvel Database wiki - I don't know where else. On Marvel Database unregistered IPs are unable to edit and only admins can do page moves. It's a slightly different approach to the one you're proposing, but it's an option to be tabled for consideration. -- WarBlade (talk) 23:02, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with this proposal. I came to Borderlands late in its life cycle and so entirely missed the shitstorm that was 2009/2010. BL2 promises to be even stormier. Dämmerung 23:09, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

both of you have raised very interesting points. not many members were around when the wiki went thru its growing pains. nor do they seem inclined to go into page histories and see. so ill add: option 2.   Dr. F            23:35, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

I can get behind this idea... in one form or another, but I'm not sure that a global block of non-members is the way to go. I'm no admin, but I do think something could be done. ~Z 63.224.214.86 16:41, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q Or in the words of the great General Knoxx, "Kill all of them: that's the fairest thing." Dämmerung 16:57, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

As seemingly the only remaining active member of the SSCC and a rollbacker, i would be willing to keep an eye on the BL1 pages while the more technically minded RC's whip the BL 2 pages into shape. However, if this is the way you would like this to go, i am fine with it. -- 03:10, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

As a VERY NEW-comer to the Wiki (still fiddling with layout stuff & no idea what a t.o.g. is)most of this has gone right over my head. I did however notice the word 'lock' (conjures the sound of a cell-door slamming, but that's another tale...). Could somebody point me towards something to read, or drop me a line (usertalk or email) so I can fathom it all? Cheers, 15:35, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

To get a rough idea of my suggestion about restricting group rights, you can head to Special:ListGroupRights... although by the looks of things our CSS is messed up with this page at the moment. Still, if you highlight to read the top field you'll see a number of entries indicating what unregistered IPs can do. Heading down the page to "Users" will show you a list of what registered users can do. And here is an example of another wiki where these rights have been modified - a couple of notable changes are that unregistered contributors cannot edit, and regular users cannot do page moves. Essentially, the software is capable of adjusting user group rights to a model more befitting a particular wiki.

My suggestion, because one of the most glaring problems here are the forum threads that keep appearing as mainspace pages, would be to prevent unregistered IPs from creating pages. We should let them continue to edit, but instead of letting them create dud pages willy nilly, we can set up some forum threads for them to use and let them post questions, ask for assistance, trade items, etc. that way.

Dr. CF's opening post is mentioning a process whereby admins will manually lock all Borderlands 1 content so that only registered users can update them. To that end you will be able to continue as normal, but IPs will be restricted (only for Borderlands 1 content). You'll also notice a stronger suggestion where those pages will be fully locked so that only admins can update.

So that's the difference. A soft global restriction on everything, a moderate restriction specific to Borderlands, or a complete restriction specific to Borderlands. -- WarBlade (talk) 23:09, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Just thought i'd toss in my 2 cents and say I think that option one seems pretty fair. If that would keep you higher-up guys (i don't know all the titles, i'm too fresh!) from having to focus on BL1 with all of the new pages flooding in, it seems like the best thing to do, at least until the rush dies down. -- 04:07, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info WarBlade, made things a lot clearer. Personally, I think joining the Wiki & being able to contribute entitles not a Right, but a Privilege. I strongly feel that with said Privilege attaches a degree of Responsibility & Accountability. If a person can't be arsed to join & be held accountable, then I vote YES to restricted access for such. As a "noob" I have no objection to certain restrictions on my level of access, if only to prevent me accidentally blundering where I shouldn't. 05:17, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Option Two

Members Only Mandate

i, for one, oppose this option on the grounds that it acts globally. however comma i have been on the losing side of policy debates before. we get most of our copy editing from UCs not to mention news "phoned in" from excited non registered and RCs not-logged-in. as an admin i do not get a vote so unless this motion is carried or another is proposed and carried i will be acting on option one.   Dr. F            23:35, July 9, 2012 (UTC)