Forum:PROPOSAL: Make Card Rulings pages editable only by Registered Users

We're currently experiencing a lot of vandalism on Rulings pages by anonymous users, and we're thinking about a change to the way they are allowed to be edited.

We'd like to make the Rulings Pages only editable by Registered Users. No other pages are affected by this proposal, they're the only pages that don't need to be edited by Anonymous, and it would clear up a lot of issues with the outside world being skeptical of the Wikia, because Rulings are editable by everyone.

Discuss.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 19:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Start

I agree with locking the rulings pages to registered users only. People add unofficial and incorrect rulings based on their own observation of the card. It's easier to keep track of identified users and know if they're reliable. (not to say anonymous is always incorrect.) A small number of registered users and able to keep track and update the official ones. As far as I know there have been little major contributions from IP edits and masive amounts of incorrect additions. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure. People just don't seem to understand that our Rulings pages are only supposed to contain (semi-)official information, or at the absolute least information backed up by an unnecessarily large amount of evidence (in which case, it should be marked as Unofficial). Perhaps we should develop a more thorough/stricter Card Rulings Policy (like we have for Images), and put it down in writing.

I don't know a thing about the software here, but would it be possible to include a note when someone tries to edit a Rulings page? Something like "WARNING: Be sure to read our Rulings Policy before continuing your edits!" ?

Off the top of my head, such a policy may include:

• "TCG Official Rulings" should contain ONLY rulings that appear on the UDE Site. ONLY.
• "TCG Semi-Official Rulings" should contain rulings directly from UDE that appear on other places. Examples include the Judges' List and forum posts by UDE staff. E-mails from UDE can appear, but only if they come from a reliable source and can be reproduced (so that people can't make up things, and then lie that UDE said so). All examples should be referenced.
• "OCG Official Rulings" should contain ONLY rulings that appear on the Konami FAQ. ONLY. All rulings should be referenced, since they are often spread over multiple pages.
• "OCG Semi-Official Rulings" should contain rulings from the Japanese Wiki or JERP, since both are thoroughly researched. Rulings from the Konami OCG Hotline thingie can appear, but only if they're from a reliable source. All examples should be referenced.
• "Unofficial" rulings should contain massive amounts of evidence to back them up. If there is any reasonable doubt, then it doesn't appear. Examples include frequently asked questions, abbreviations of rulings/rules-of-thumb (like my one for Winged Kuriboh LV9, or the one on "Angel O7), or conclusions based on the Card Text (like "Kuraz"). Unofficial rulings should ALWAYS include the logic behind the ruling.
• Possibly a "see also" section, for similar or comparable card rulings ("Tenkabito Shien": See "Wildheart"). Maybe under the "Unofficial" section.

Anything else should NOT appear. Exceptions may be permitted on a case-by-case basis, and only with permission by a higher-up. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Interesting. I think we actually do have a policy written somewhere, but on some page nobody ever visits. I think it may be possible to add such a warning message. I don't know how, but if it's possible, we can easily enough find out. However messages like that tend to be ignored. Meh we all do it. (Use merchandise without reading the manual) We had messages displayed at the top of every page twice in the past; once explaining a technical problem wikia was having and once giving instructions to not create talk pages for the rulings, tips etc pages. Massive amounts of users ignored them both times.

Looking at the guidlines, you've suggested... TCG & OCG official & semi-official, I agree with. If someone doesn't abide them, it's simple, it gets reverted and they're given the explaination. The unofficial one's the tricky one. People are going to add rulings they deem needed. Like this, which is actually true, but overexcessive. I still think it's possible to bend around (or at least say that one is going by) the rule for adding unofficial rulings to adding whatever one wants.

Anyway, overall, I like your idea. Locking it from unregistered members does seem a bit extreme. I suppose vandalism, incorrect and poor additions is something all pages must deal with, and locking all pages is certainly too extreme.

So we could go with all your afforementioned guidlines, bar the unofficial one. That's where your last suggestion comes in. Only allow unofficial ones to be added by users who are recognised to have a proficient understanding of rulings or only added with their approval.

But the credibility issues other people have had regarding this site, isn't addressed. I guess there really is no avoiding that on a wiki. No matter how well Wikipedia sources it articles, we're still going to hear people saying it's unreliable, souly because anyone can edit it. I gues locking the pages won't change that too much. Seeing the word wiki, would problably throw those people off anyway. *Sigh*

I'm problably sounding mistrusting of those who edit anonymously. Sorry >_>.

Anyway thanks for your input. You've changed my mind at least. -- Deltaneos (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose you're right about the unofficial rulings. Just to nitpick, considering how many times it's been asked, the "Substitoad" thing is a good example of a frequently asked question that should be added. It may be a little overexcessive, but it would save people some time. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The issue is not with the editing of rulings, it is with people who edit the rulings there to what they want the card to do, for unknown means. This is primarily to help stamp that out, and at the same time, make less reading and less needless reverting for the rest of us.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Ah, so I can hide my edits! That makes this easier!)

To ruling pages in the past 30 days, there were 36 edits by registered user and 38 by anonymous ones (excluding sysops and repeated edits by the same user). Of these, 10 registered edits and 26 anonymous edits ultimately had to be reverted. There were 22 registered users editting and 34 anonymous users editting, of which 8 registered and 22 anonymous users made only erroneous edits. That's about 1/3 of registered users and 2/3 of anonymous users.

Of these anonymous users, 7 were spamming, 5 were adding in correct but not on-official-rulings-pages rulings (or attempts to "correct"/add to official rulings), and 10 were adding incorrect rulings (or changing "cannot" to "can", etc). For registered ones, it's 1/3/4.

*goes off to think about the results* --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 17:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What if you use / adapt:

• Patrollers. Doesn't prevent problem from happening, may make cleanup tasks easier.
• Captcha. Make anon edits on NS foo go through an intermediate captcha-like step. (With or without actual captcha image.) With prominent "are you sure your edit is ok with our policy of [whatever]" message.

(I'm a very infrequent visitor to Yu-Gi-Oh! Pls ping me on my talk page if you reply here.) -- Nef <staff /> (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(Posted by Zeroblizzard): Rulings, at least in the yugioh tournament circle, revolve around judges to make decisions. The point of yugioh wikia is so that people who know yugioh can contribute to the overall experience that a lot of players depend on. Therefore, it makes sense that the registered users can only change the rulings, because they are the judges of the content on yugioh wikia. If someone really wants to make change (like I did), then they should be forced to be a part of the community to make their opinion/knowledge heard. — This unsigned comment was made by Zeroblizzard (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that things that are sensitive like "rulings" official or not should be limited since the goal of this wikia is to deseminate accuarate information about the game we all enjoy. At least with requiring non-anon editing would allow some amount of accountability and discussion regarding posting... that's my two cents.... --Pcouw 03:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• because some people use this wiki to look up card rulings, they could insert incorrect information just so it could benifit that person — This unsigned comment was made by 99.9.207.39 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is would help, but couldn't these people just make an account and edit it? Also there should be a link to the actual official rulings on all of the ruling pages. Murtagh4 00:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We do reference rulings with links to the official rulings pages or other official sources. It's not done on all the rulings pages yet, because we're not finished. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with this proposal, however I would like to make a semi-related suggestion. On several occasions while playing the TCG with friends and family, there have been misunderstandings regarding certain rulings, and more often than not, a particular ruling is not listed that is necessary to determine the outcome of a crucial move. I propose the addition of a ruling FAQ, wherein users, be they registered or anonymous, can submit inquiries regarding a ruling that is not mentioned or unclear. For example, If Miracle Jurassic Egg is face-up on the field, and a player uses the effect of Gandora the Dragon of Destruction to remove all other cards on the field from play, is Miracle Jurassic Egg affected? Does the term "Face-up" refer to any card that is visible to either player (case in point, normal spell cards played from one's hand, or trap cards whose effect resolves immediately when flipped face-up), or is it exclusive to cards that remain on the field for the span of at least one turn from each player (monster cards, continuous/field/equip spells/traps, etc.)? — This unsigned comment was made by 98.221.3.231 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a section already exists on this site: Forum:Yu-Gi-Oh! Ruling Queries. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

More than just the rulings

We need to start thinking about more than just the rulings page, there needs to be some way we can stop all the Vandalism all together . . . TheDivineDuelist 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• As of now, no such way. Plus we have to do one thing at a time. Dmaster (Talk • Contribs • Count) 15:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see . . .

Understandable . . . .

TheDivineDuelist 16:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. it's not like it's difficult to get an account, and non-users could still have access to everything but the ability to edit the rulings page. I think most vandals aren't going to want to take the five minutes to open an account in order to vandalize a rulings page, and I think the rules are important enough to warrant a basic level of authorization.

Cow pi 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my mind about this. I am now in favour of this, mainly out of frustration over all the edits I have to undo. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 18:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm yeah, I thought it through a while back and decided to go back in favour too, if we can get enough support. Okay, overall that's about 10 in favour and zero against. I'll see if that's enough. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be only for members.

Killbolt 03:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good plan, but...

This proposal is good, and I support it. This way users who feel like dong something stupid can be held accountable instead of tracking them through a IP Address. Lots of people have been doing that on more than just ruling pages, so it's seems logical to make one less page inaccessible to more people.

However, I do feel a little uneasy about not being able to add a true rule not found on official sites. For example, a few months ago I tried to add a rule to Ocean Dragon Lord - Neo-Daedalus stating effects like Stardust Dragon could not be used agianst the effect of Ocean Dragon Lord - Neo-Daedalus. It was true, but since it wasn't a rule mentioned on any other officail site, it was removed. Of course a reason for it's removal was sent to me and I abided by it, to me there wasn't anything wrong with it, and I know this from personal experiences. I've had numerous players and judges give me grief about my ruling, and almost everytime I've had to take it up to a head judge who, of course, proved both my opponent and the judge wrong. I think the reason behind that is because of the fact that Levia-Dragon - Daedalus, a card required to play Ocean Dragon Lord - Neo-Daedalus, DOES have an effect negatable by a Stardust Dragon and can often get confused with Ocean Dragon Lord - Neo-Daedalus. It may also be because most competitive players and lesser judges are more familiar with cards only run in tournament decks like Lightsworns and such.

After that, I stopped adding rules cause I didn't want to accidentally add one that couldn't be added. Some people, but not all, need to know that stuff cause it's easy to assume or ignore crucial things like that. I can understand stuff like what Dues Ex Machina mentioned about the Substitoad deal, but would it be possible to be able to add the more legitimate rules if you were to get them from a second hand source, like maybe an E-Mail from an official source or something similar? This counts for more than just this one card cause I'm sure people across the world run into stuff like this all the time. I respect the Wiki and all of it's policies and will continue to abide by the rules of the site if this isn't possible, but I thought it would be a good time to bring it up since your gonna be changing the policy soon anyway. --Sky Scourge God 19:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless such a ruling can be cited, it invites people to post whatever unofficial rulings they feel like. Trouble is they're not always going to be right. An e-mail wouldn't be sufficient, since it can't be shown to everyone who views the page. I would have suggested getting a UDE judge to confirm it in the community forums, but now that they require a login to view, I'm not sure they're legitimate references as it requires users to register for another site in order to view them. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

hhhmmm... I guess that makes sense. When you put it that way, it's really not worth the trouble of going through that whole process. Gotta do this, gotta do that... Oh well, thanks for listening anyway. --Sky Scourge God 21:07, 26 February 209 (UTC)

My Thougts as a Judge

Yes I do agre that it should only be for registered users only. But I also have to say that how will you guys be able to ensure that even the registered users will be making correct rullings? I as a judge am carefull on all of my rulings so I know what I'm saying by this. That way you avoid confusion amoung the players both new and old. — This unsigned comment was made by Aizen Sosuke (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Deus Ex Machina checks changes people make the rulings pages almost daily. Anything that can't be referenced gets removed. Any self-composed rulings (true or false) get removed. (It turns out almost every IP edit gets reverted.) That procedure is the only way we can really stop logged in users adding incorrect content. Protecting the namespace from logged in users defeats the purpose of a site that anyone can edit. The issue is really whether preventing IPs editing it would even defeat that purpose. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but is there a group on this site that shows that they are experienced judge that knows what they are saying on here? Just wondering is all. Because if anything I am willing to do that or at least help out with it. — This unsigned comment was made by Aizen Sosuke (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Being a judge wouldn't really be required, since we don't get people to make-up rulings. Any rulings we document have to be officially issued. Only rulings that were listed on the UDE website (before it was taken down), the UDE Judges lists or Konami FAQ are allowed. It's only a matter of copying them and adding a link to the site they came from. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think that blocking edits by non-registered users defeats that purpose. It is still a site that anyone can edit; it's just that anyone wishing to edit (this specific page category) has to go through the five minutes necessary to create an account. I don't think that's too much to ask to better protect something as important as the rules.

~Specter (cow_pi) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I don't agree with you. But it's moreso would it defeat the purpose "from Wikia's point of view". I'm guessing most of the people who agree with this would also like the entire site to be locked from logged out users. If Wikia felt forcing a sign-in would still leave the "anyone can edit" enviroment they would make wikis be like that by default. We really want people who think rulings specifically should be locked. (I'm not saying you don't feel that way, but this is for anyone who reads this) -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

and I understand that :D I'm just saying that:

• The Rules are official enough and important enough to warrant a basic level of registration (even if it's just to stop vandals, who probably aren't going to go through the trouble of creating an account)

and

• even with this new measure put in place, it's not stopping the ruling pages from being editable by anyone, assuming they're willing to create an account.

~Specter (cow_pi) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

create a limited group who can post?

Wikipedia actually has some subjects that are only editable by a closed, approved group. Perhaps this should be the same -- only people who are approved judges through the program are allowed to edit the card rulings pages. It would take a while to set up and to get a group together, but it might be a solution to the problem, and if Wikipedia can create a closed group, I would think this site could also -- but I don't actually know if it is possible.

Alternately, perhaps only official card rulings should go up. If there are no official card rulings for a card, it should just say so -- something to the effect that "there are no official published rulings for X."

Starwefter 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)starwefter

I'm not sure Wikipedia has such user groups. Could you give a link to an example of what you mean? If we were to make such a group, it would still mean protecting the namespace. I don't think restricting it to judges only is the way to go. As I said above, you don't need to be a judge to copy rulings from an official source. Rulings from official sources are all that are allowed atm. Users cannot write their own rulings, even if they are correct. Official rulings alone, should hopefully be enough. Also I don't think any of the people who usually add rulings are judges. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. I don't think posters should have to be judges, but they should have to be trusted. At least somewhat. I won't argue what's wrong or right about restricting the ruling pages from non-registered users, but I still think that creating an account is too easy to complain about, and that it will probably cut out a lot of vandals who aren't going to put forth that effort. Vandals want to be anonymous. Some are willing to create bogus accounts just to vandalize the wikia, but I really think that the majority of vandals probably just want to attack a page from their IP address and not worry about accounts to begin with. I really don't see why it works, but I still believe it would. For whatever reason, the average vandal isn't going to want to create an account to vandalize a page, while the average sincere constructive-poster probably would. I think it just comes down to human nature: people who want to destroy things are usually lazier than people who want to help. xD it's basic volunteer bias. if we can use that to protect the rulings' pages, then why not?

~Specter (cow_pi) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Rulings

Hello. I'm not terribly familiar with rulings, and I'm even less familiar with Wika/wiki...ing, in general. But the other day I came over an inappropriate entry for the lore on Snipe Hunter, and changed it to reflect what was on the lore of the card image... since then, another anonymous user has also tweaked it (Thankfully, another user caught it--checking lets me know it was PoirotH, who I thank. My question is this--is there any way to easily protect entries? It seems to be impossible, so... in that case, is there an easy way to revert an entry to a previous state, should one encounter vandalism in the obvious and direct sense?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

DJSprings 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mailbox

Why not make it more like a mailbox? You submit rulings, maybe the official source, and then they are checked by a designated group.

I mean if you can set up a site with individual pages for each account i'm sure a submit box would work. — This unsigned comment was made by This Is My Yubel (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent changes pretty much serves that purpose. All submissions to the rulings namespace are always checked. The issue isn't that incorrect material is being posted unnoticed. It's moreso that one group of editors keep posting incorrect or inappropriate content and we'd rather stop them altogether than have to constantly revert what they post. -- Deltaneos (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

registered users only

you should make it only so registered users can edit. It would put of vandals, or make it so that unregistered users' edits aren't shown. Or if they do it three times registered then they can't edit.

Use the Ruling Forum

• Only registered judges should be able to add official rulings to the individual card rulings page, but if there are still questions about rulings, they can just be posted on the ruling forum, for more specific ruling. Example: this card vs this card. Only people who can prove that they are judges are allowed. Messengerofthedark 03:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Messengerofthedark

Vote?

This is a very important topic, because it affects nearly everyone who visits this wiki. Therefore, rather than debating about it and eventually having to choose one side or the other, what if we take a vote? The suggestion of making card ruling pages only editable by registered users has been around for a long time (about 9 months at the time of this posting), and taking a vote could solve this quickly and easily. Also, since many people have already posted, potential voters would have a chance to read on both sides of the story. This could be accomplished by anyone who wants to vote simply leaving a post stating whether or not they think card rulings should be editable only by registered users. Then, after a predetermined date, we tally the vote and see the outcome.

This is just a suggestion. — This unsigned comment was made by Extreme Card Player (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A vote isn't really needed. (Besides it's clear from the above comments that most people, who responded, want it protected). In the end this is going to be Wikia staff's decision. They may reject it even if more people are in favour than against. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done

The Card Rulings namespace is now editable by only registered users. -- Deltaneos (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you! --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged, Deltaneos. You have my thanks. (I was checking what some of my earliest edits were and I found this. That's cool.) Zeroblizzard 05:26, December 29, 2009 (UTC)Zeroblizzard