Board Thread:Wiki Management/@comment-7424710-20161007065636

This has been a progressive debate over the months, and nobody has ever made a solid proposition of the topic. That's where this proposition comes in.

If you don't understand what this is dealing about, I'll give you the layout: This proposal deals with whether or not users should ask for permission to create their own versions of an already owned, existing fight. There never really was a rule or regulation discussing this issue, and any admin/moderator that says there is was probably lying. I made a poll in August discussing this matter as well.

Some admins that I have seen rather go for free access while most regular users prefer permission. That's a very different selection of ideas. Now what I'm going to do is take both of those and merge them into a single, solid idea. The reason instead of sticking with one? Well, both arguments have their benefits, but they also have their downfalls. Both arguments actually neutralize both their downfalls if we combine the two solid ideas. Let me break it down:

A main argument in the permission group is that if there was a cluster of tabs and works at once, it would be catastrophic to try and edit in your sections piece by piece. One could edit before you unknowingly and cause all your work to vanish at an instant! That's why many users don't tend to allow alternate versions while they're working on the page or have yet to touch it. It may seem selfish, but it has legitimate concerns. Also, it's just polite in general to ask anyways.

Though, enforcing to ask for permission all the time can lead to some troubles, hence forth the main and honestly only supporting argument from the free access group. If a user is inactive, whether it's mid-page or after completing a page, and people would be forced to ask for permission, you'd likely never get a response back. This brings up a valid point, because not many users stay on the wiki forever, and they make pack up and leave along with their work. If they're not there to notice the request, what would be the point of asking?

This is where we merge the two into one basic idea. Here's the layout:

- If a fight is owned by an active user, and it is incomplete, you would have to ask for permission to create an alternate version.

'''- If a fight is owned by an active user, and it is complete, Free Access would be implemented. HOWEVER, it is required to give a notice to the user (via Message Wall) before doing anything to the page.'''

'''- If a fight is owned by an INACTIVE (Has not logged onto DBF Wiki for at least 6 months) user, and it is incomplete, Free Access would be implemented. If the inactive user has been absent for over 12 months, then you are eligible to remove their category if you so desire.'''

Now it's time to answer some questions I predict would appear.

"Ari, what if I have reason to be absent for more than six months?"

Well... that's the only big issue I see if this were to be implemented. What I would reccomend is not only publishing (whether it be on a blog or the forum) that you are going to leave for such a long period of time, I would also reccomend you ask an administrator to lock any incomplete fight pages you own. This would definitely help keep them safe and secure until further notice.

"Ari, how come I wouldn't have consent AFTER I complete it?"

The answer is pretty simple. You're done with it, right? Then you would have no reason to keep it private to nobody but yourself. Even though I support the permission group, I can still see why hogging a page to yourself even after you've finished what you needed to do is considered "selfish".

"Ari, what's the point of leaving a notice on their Walls?"

A notice helps bring attention to it. Fact is, a lot of people can confuse you putting your own version in with vandalism. If you're mistaken for vandalism because you just blindly went it, it can cause confusion and at worst a big calling out over nothing. When you drop by and tell them you're doing it, it at least lets them know what you're doing isn't bad stuff.

I expect this to be a more controversial topic than ones from earlier. And I myself think that there could be obvious faults within my proposal. It's about 2 AM for me, I could've easily missed something that would've been important. So please, if something's off to you or you want to add something, speak out and discuss it. I expect this topic to be a big discussion barrel anyhow.

Do you agree with this motion? Yes No  