Forum:An extremely serious discussion regarding Modern Warfare 2

After Modern Warfare 2 comes out (probably around a month after), semi-protect ALL pages that are related to Modern Warfare 2 (I personally think that the whole wiki should be permanently semi-protected). Then allow me, and maybe a select few others, to edit all of them as I see fit. The purpose of this would be to: This would be a very long process. It would probably take at least a month. There are very, very few editors who I would trust to join me in this. I mean, we're talking Honors/AP English students who are intimately familiar with the game. I can totally understand why people would be opposed to this; it is elitism in its purest form and would exclude many good members of the community from contributing. But before you oppose it, please consider this. It's foolproof. All Modern Warfare 2 pages would be of the utmost accuracy and quality, which they otherwise will not be. I have put a ton of hard work into just about every perk, weapon, and attachment page from CoD4 and CoDWaW, and now much of it has been tainted by the contributions of poor writers or people who think they know about the game but don't. It is beyond infuriating to see dozens of hours of work go down the drain like that. User:Imrlybord7 14:29, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ensure perfect grammar, spelling, and punctuation
 * Ensure that all writing is wikified, with none of those blasted impersonal you's or any opinions
 * Ensure that all information is accurate, especially stats

Semi Protecting all Modern Warfare 2 Articles

Using temporary admins

Please vote below this line.

Comment - Also, I also want to suggest we use temporary admins. These users will be granted full admin powers for a month (or longer if needed), to help tackle vandalism and help protect pages. There has already been a major increase in vandalism, and we cannot let these internet trolls get the better of us. So I suggest we hire 2-3 users. This is very late to be discussing these issues, so we need your vote! Do not nominate people yet (actually, if anyone should be a temporary admin, it should be Imrlybord), I'm actually considering we do a random draw. It's very late to be doing this, so we need to hurry. 18:22, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support of semi-protecting pages and use of temporary admins - This is vital. We cannot lose to vandals. Even bad English should not be tolerated, even if the edit was in good faith (which, if the edit is not vandalism, is almost always true). We need to show our worth, and we need to be the NUMBER ONE place for CoD info. 18:22, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support both Definitely, all MW2-related articles should be set to Autoconfirmed-only at least for a month or two after MW2 comes out. As for temp admins, as long as we get someone we know and trust to do it, they'll be a big help in fighting the huge surge of vandals we'll undoubtedly see. --WouldYouKindly 18:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm wondering if we should also temporarily tighten the block policy along with everything else here. A 3 day block (which is the norm for most first-time vandals) isn't really going to stop persistent people for long, especially when there's a ton of new content ripe for the vandalizing.  I think we should extend blocks for first time vandals to a week or so, then 2 months for second-timers, etc. WouldYouKindly 18:49, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - 3 days for minor vandalism - 1 week for major vandalism - 2 weeks for second vandalism - 1 month after that - any hardcore racism that user is blocked indefinitely. Any thoughts? I don't like being too harsh. 18:57, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support both as proposer (not a real word). COD4, thanks for posting this. However, if we are implementing it this early (I intended for this to happen later), it will have to be implemented for a longer period of time. And COD4, relax. There's no imminent threat, although I do appreciate your zeal. Imrlybord7 19:38, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We should base the temporary admin positions more on writing ability. If someone isn't working as well as we thought (for example, an inexperienced user who is a good writer), we can remove them from the position. At the end of the "cleansing" all users who are temporary admins should RfA. /thinly veiled play for power Imrlybord7 19:51, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support both-- 20:15, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support both - Vandalism has peaked really high recently (me having my own page being vandalized) and I believe it is a must. Remember the "ass-rape" vandalizer? There are probably more than that guy waiting to ruin "Takedown" or "Breach & Clear". Not to sound arrogant (I hate sounding so), but I think I could step up to the challenge as temporary admin.   Maj.Gage   Talk . 20:18, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support both with all the vandalism on MW2 and other articles this past month I'm all for it. In fact I call the idea extremely necessary for protecting the integrity of this wiki. I also think we do need more admins. In fact I rushed all over the place last week to put protection templates on as many MW2 articles as I could. PhantBat 20:20, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support Both - Cpl. Wilding Comment - I offer a tweak. Three temp admins are assigned to certain parts of the game, like one to singleplayer missions, another to multiplayer weapons & maps, and the third is a "floater", fixing character pages and nything else the other two admins may have missed. This helps organization and prevents the admins from stepping on each other's toes. Like Maj. Gage (I too hate sounding arrogant <_<) I feel that I could take on singleplayer missions as a temp admin. Cpl. Wilding 20:26, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support Both I support both, but I think that for admins, but instead of a random draw, we should make the people who think they have Full admin potential a temp admin, so that they can prove themselves, like people who tried for admin but didn't get it. Who's with me, eh? 20:34, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the idea of admins looking at only spefic areas, makes alot of sense, to be honest, with all the running around I've done, I could put myself in the running to be a temp admin. PhantBat 20:37, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Wilding, that's a really good idea. I would like to oversee the project as a whole (I think that's within my rights as its mastermind) but focus my personal editing on multiplayer stuff (weapons, perks, attachments, killstreaks, etc.). Imrlybord7 20:41, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support Both Per all, users who can be trusted should be a temporary admin, also I like the fact of assigning admins to a specific area. It will make things a little bit easier 21:01, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral/Pending both - I can't say I'm entirely sold on this idea. It's a good idea, don't get me wrong, but it sounds a little unfair for the rest of the community to be blocked out of editing any Modern Warfare 2-based article for a whole month. And if certain users are going to be made admins, I personally think they should be permenant. So for now I'm on the fence about this. Moozipan Cheese 21:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment Usually I focus on single player stuff myself, usually characters weapons, and sometimes levels. I also like to categorize articles better. PhantBat 21:03, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral and support - I am sold on the admin idea, but I am not completely sure on the semi-protected pages idea. If all of the pages are semi-protected, there will be probably a gargantuan flood of I{s trying to voice something or another, so there might need to be a temporary change to the talk pages. Also, I am confused upon the level of protection this will mean, can the registered users (us), still edit and everything? Thanks, Attack Rhino 21:56, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, it's only new and anonymous users that would be barred from editing the articles. Autoconfirmed (registered users who have been in good standing with the wiki for a few days or so) users will still be able to edit the articles fine. WouldYouKindly 23:12, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support one, oppose other - Ah, I see. Then I change my vote. I thought no one would be able to edit apart from certain selected people. Still think having temporary admins is a bad idea though. And these cleanups should take place quickly, within a few days, not a whole month. Moozipan Cheese 23:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support for both - I actually suggested the first idea a while ago, so I'm defintly all for it. The second one sounsd like a good idea, since I'm not really editing this wiki at the moment. Darkman 4 22:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support both - Pretty much what everyone else said. I like the idea of specific admins for specific areas of the game. I'll help with the Single Player missions, admin or not, as I will undoubtedly beat the game on regular before I go to sleep that night. But yeah, vandals are really starting to get on my nerves.22:51, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support both - Pretty much what everyone else said. I would do a great job as a temporary admin, this wiki really needs one. 1:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support x2 - Although my personal opinion falls in line with Moozipan that we might as well give these individuals full-time admin powers if we're handing them out to certain people. 01:53, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose both - Wow, just wow. I am literally sitting here with my mouth open. REALLY!?!? What kind of a wiki is this? Temporary admins? That completely chucks the whole idea of VOTING for an admin (as we did in the recent RFA) out the window. We just voted in a few admins! If anything, you should be asking people like me and our other less active admins to step up to the plate and be helping a lot in the next while. At the very least it is a security issue, as many of these choices floating around (ie. Imrlybord7) were voted DOWN in the previous RFA! To move onto semi-protecting all of the MW2 pages, that completely goes against what a wiki is; a place for everyone to contribute. Now, when contributions are needed THE MOST is just after a game is released. We will be shutting out a decent number of contributions. As far as vandalism goes, I will not be buying this game, so on the release date and a few days after for sure, I will keep an eye out for vandalism. Frankly, when I see the temporary admin idea, I see cod1 right above my comment saying "I would do a great job as a temporary admin!" Really? Come on guys. To be honest, the only reason I'm not like "WTF *SCREAM* *RAMPAGE*!!!" is because I want to keep some degree of professionalism in the formal parts of the wiki. I'm almost at a loss for words at this. 02:59, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Creepy, we're only protecting it against unregistered IPs and new users who may not know how to fully use Wikia and potentially wreck hours of good work and/or vandalise the wiki in general. Temporary admins only appthe month after MW2 comes out, they won't pop in and make admin decisions. Also, how in the heck are we going to ask inactive admins when they're inactive. I've never gotten any notification of a message unless I visited the CoDWiki. Thus, if they don't know if they have a message, then the vandals and new users will run rampant while the rest of us try to clean up the neverending mess. At least ATTEMPT to have an open mind. Cpl. Wilding 03:11, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - First off, comments to me should be directed to my talk page, if you please. Second off, I don't think you understand what a wiki is. Essentially, a wiki is supposed to LIVE off the anonymous edits that we get. IPs and User names are basically the same thing, just one is a little more secure for the user. We most definitely should not be casting out IPs, or forcing them to create an account. ESPECIALLY not when we need as many edits as possible. By the way I am not necassarily inactive, and I can ALWAYS be reached by my talk page. Remember, just because people are inactive on the wiki, doesn't mean they don't check their e-mail or aren't on the computer. I get an e-mail every time someone posts on my talk page. 03:40, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Changing to Neutral both I see Creepydude's point, it sounds like a good idea on paper, but I think a better idea would be just to do what we normally do and protect any "problem pages" as we go along. Semi-protecting everything wouldn't send the best impression when a potential new contributor goes to add to one of the MW2 pages and sees "GTFO" pasted on their screen instead. As for admins, we'll probably just have to step up our game (I'll probably be playing MW2 with one eye on my TV and the other on the Recent Changes page lol) WouldYouKindly 03:14, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose both proposals - Per Creepy, more or less. Semi-protection is only supposed to be used on articles that are either high traffic by nature or are already recipient of much vandalism—not because you think there could be vandalism. If a page is figuratively a vandal's playground, then it could be semi-protected for a short amount of time. Not sooner.

With temporary sysops, that is just not how it works. Someone would have to either pass an RfA or adopt the Wiki to receive sysop rights. However, if we really do need people on vandalism patrol, rollback would suffice as well. All you have to do to get that is ask. 04:18, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Changing to neutral on both - I agree with WYK, Creepy makes a good point. We really don't need admins just to add their expertise on certain areas. Isn't that what people are supposed to do all the time? 04:22, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Opposition - I don't think any of you understand the severity of shitty contributors. When I said that dozens of hours of my hard work went down the drain, I wasn't joking. And Creepy, that comment on my talk page was pretty unnecessary, especially given the fact that way more people agree with me than you. Seriously. I'm not happy about it. If you are going to argue against something that is winning by double digits, don't be so dismissive. Tearing down other people's opinions like that (especially opinions that seem to have quite a following) is the beginning of the slippery slope to power abuse. Imrlybord7 04:44, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - *deep breath* Ok, it is with great restraint as usual that I'm not totally freaking out here. Imrlybord, maybe you should check out my response to this on Akyoyo's talk page. I'm even going to use bold here to prove my point. '''You do not understand. There is no point in continuing the vote at this point. This vote does NOT follow wikia policies, and CANNOT be initiated.''' Yes, I am angry, but I am attempting to be fairly civil, at least in the official part of the wiki. All of my responses as of now I stand by, and will not take them back. Imrlybord, I don't care how good your work is, if you want to see this wiki thrive, you need to accept other edits, and quit pretending that everyone elses edits are inferior to yours. I think someone has a bad case of narccisism. I probably shouldn't be talking about personal details here, so I will cut it short. 07:15, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support on semi-protecting - As somebody who understands wasted hard work, I have to agree with semi-protecting. The only reason I would agree to this proposal is because Imrlybord recognizes the dangers with doing something like this. This is a major decision, and I'm glad he considered both sides of the situation. CoD has its haters, amongst the other scum that troll this site. The last thing we need is vandalism when there is so much work to be done. Neutral, leaning towards oppose on temp admins - As for the temp admins, I'm not so sure about it, at least right now. Creepy has a good point, and besides, we just elected two new admins. If the semi-protecting goes through(and it looks like it will) there wouldn't be a need for it. We'll just have to see when MW2 comes out. Chief z 07:49, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

 Support semi-Protection, Oppose Temporary Admins - In most cases, the wide-spread semi protection idea isn't exactly...a good one. But in this case, it's definitely an exception. As for the Temps, I don't know...if they have to be the most trusted of the trusted and the best of the best etc., it would make more sense to just have them voted in as permanent admins. And besides, we already have plenty now, anyway. 18:02, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Oppose Both - Per what Creepy said here and else where, basically. Makes no sense, really.

Comment We will only protect the pages after they are complete. Up to then unregistered users can edit. It only makes sense to protect them after they are complete, otherwise it's unfair for unregistered users, per Creepy, Chia and whomever. 20:00, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have a question: what is semi-protection? Would I still be able to help improve the Wiki as a non-admin? If not then I strongly against this; it's not what Wiki's are about to be honest. Zefer 22:32, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think semi-protection just stops very new users and IP adresses from editing. Moozipan Cheese 23:07, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Changing Both to Neutral - Looks like Creepy just swayed my vote. 22:38, November 5, 2009 (UTC) 'Oppose All Per Creepy and Chia; this is not an idea we should nurture. Anons are the base of all edits and we shouldn't start disallowing their edits all of the sudden because we think a percent of the unregistered contributor wits will be negative. That's a terrible stand-point. Temporary admins is essentially a silly idea. If they weren't already entrusted with sysop privileges now, why should we give-up our standards and hand them out willy-nilly? It makes having sysop privileges look like a game, a "we can make 10 more sysops in a week because we think a few bad anons will come" concept, and it's quite dangerous. If I told you how many ways someone could use sysop rights to gain access to either your account or your computer via MediaWikia faults, I'd bet you be swayed. Also, on a wiki, no pages are ever "complete" (@ CoD4) 08:26, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Changing to Oppose temp admins - The more I think about it, the more I am against granting temp admins. To me, it's equivalent to granting emergency powers; in my experience, whenever emergency powers are granted, bad things tend to happen (Take Julius Caesar for example). I think it will lead to power abuse; yes, we just dealt with that problem, but come on, we're all people here. All it takes is a little provoking and this whole thing can blow up in our face. Comment - As far as semi-protecting, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about it. We might be jumping the gun here. I'm thinking about actually just waiting a few weeks after launch to start Bord's idea of organizing Task Force Grammar (excuse the name, not trying to poke fun). That way it gives enough time for the Anons and us to gather a sufficient amount of info to organize and write informative, well-written articles before semi-protection kicks in, if need be. Of course those are just my thoughts. Chief z 13:36, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Changing to Oppose temp admins - per all. And I'm still pissed at Creepy, although I doubt he cares. Imrlybord7 16:41, November 6, 2009 (UTC)