Forum:Upcoming sets protection

I'm sure bringing this up is overdue, but upcoming Booster Pack pages always get lots of unconfirmed, deliberately false or otherwise false information posted on them. Sad truth is this site is often mocked in other online communities for fake information that gets posted here. These pages sometimes get semi-protected, locked from editing by new and unregistered users, after a long history of vandalism. Pages usually don't get locked preemptively, but since this vandalism is inevitable, should we apply the protection shortly after the set is announced?

The advantage is obviously, less false information. Users don't have to keep reverting and there'll be less complaints about the site being unreliable.

The disadvantage is, upcoming Booster Packs are always the most visited pages. It's what the readers are most interested in. Readers who go on to be editors usually start by editing things that interest them. That won't be quite so easy when the page is protected. However they should still be able to edit the related card articles, which is probably more common anyway.

So do people agree that we should lock these pages right after the set is announced? Please comment if you agree, disagree or have anything else to say. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:43, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there's also this template; {{Pp-upcoming set}}, which we can put at the top of protected set pages, so that anyone who can't edit it, knows what's going on and that they can still suggest changes through the talk page. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:48, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

You've basically covered everything there; It's going to be locked anyway, so why not do it before the vandalism xD

Agreed. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 20:46, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed too :).--Hydronic (talk • contribs) 20:47, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

The Kitty authorized that as well. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 20:49, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

I also say go ahead and do it...BassNettoHikari2...Chat Page... 22:38, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw my vote in, with the note that the full protection detection is possible entirely from within {{pp-upcoming set}}'s code; see w:c:templates:Template:Protected for how it works. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 03:40, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say promoting talk pages more for unofficial info but it's true that only a few (if any) unregistered users would care. Semi-protection seems the best solution for me, but it seems it has been ineffective. I don't know... There are other wikis online (such as Bulbapedia) that support total lock and have completely eliminated IPs from editing. Moreover, the articles about upcoming events and releases can only be edited by admins and bureaucrats. I of course doubt the wisdom in doing that. It would be like eliminating the nature of the wiki if you locked all articles that have much info coming... Is it really that hard to leave them as they are and just keep reverting false info? --Montechristo95 (talk • contribs) 17:22, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally in favour of this. On a side note, can we also implement this on all "Card Rulings" pages? I know there was a very ancient discussion about this before: Forum:PROPOSAL: Make Card Rulings pages editable only by Registered Users but I didn't really understand the conclusion of that. It seemed to suggest that the pages should be locked and yet all of them are still editable by any Tom, Dick and Jerry on the planet.-- HHTurtle ^Talk   09:35, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

The "Card Rulings" namespace has already been restricted to only registered users due to that discussion. Any page starting with "Card Rulings:" is automatically only editable by people with accounts. Unlike what we're discussing here sysops don't have to protect every individual rulings page and newly created accounts may edit rulings pages. -- Deltaneos (talk) 11:34, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I'm asking for is for the "Card Rulings" pages to be locked from editing by new and unregistered users. I don't know if you have heard but false and unofficial rulings have also hurt the reputation of this Wikia badly. Some of the best rulings queries answerers on other forums like Pojo, TCG Player, Yugi-Tube, etc... don't believe the rulings we have here anymore. This also includes official judges.-- HHTurtle ^Talk   13:31, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

There are over 3000 rulings pages. Including cards that don't have rulings pages but have a red link to one, there are over 5000. There's only about 2-3 incorrect changes to rulings each day, which get reverted. It's not a huge problem. If there are people who think that the rulings posted here are totally unreliable, given it's policy to only use official rulings, only registered users can edit them and references are included, I think the only way to please those people is making the wiki editable by only Konami staff. -- Deltaneos (talk) 15:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Often times, many of the users here and the people who rely on this wikia for official rulings have been misled by vandalism on these rulings pages. Reverting the edits of these acts of vandalism will not solve the problem at all. What I'm suggesting is for the benefit of the Wikia in the long run. I know that you said that it seems impractical given the number of rulings pages that need to be protected. However, why can't the "Card Rulings" namespace be restricted for only well-established users to edit?-- HHTurtle ^Talk   15:56, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this is happening often? It may have happened more often in the past when unregistered people could edit them. There's only the time slot between when something incorrect is posted and when it's reverted for someone to be misled by it. And it only happens with 2 to 3 random rulings pages out of over 3000 per day.

The problem you're mentioning applies to all pages. Many moreso than rulings I'm sure. If we lock up every page where there's a chance of false information being posted, we get much less editors and move away from being a site that anyone can edit, which is the whole point of being on Wikia. I'm not even sure they'd allow us to restrict pages that much. -- Deltaneos (talk) 17:01, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is not that people have been misled by vandalism, but that they have been using *any* information they found on this wiki without first confirming it elsewhere. Wikis, by their very "anyone can edit" nature, should never be taken as the final word on a given issue, barring extremely specific circumstances. The rulings sources don't exist so much to ensure the veracity of the rulings presented here, as they do to allow readers to be able to quickly and easily confirm what the original, truly official ruling says. If individual readers don't want to take the time to follow up on what they read here - particularly judges and the like, who should know better anyways - that's their problem, not ours. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:44, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

The same logic applies to the upcoming sets pages, which is what we are (were) discussing protecting. We do include links to Shriek, Konami, Manjyomethunder etc. in the references section. People should be checking them before believing what's posted on the page.

It's not a reason to leave every page unprotected, because we do obviously want the wiki to have the right information posted most of the time, even though it's not a primary source.

So the reason it's (maybe) okay to protect upcoming sets, but not all rulings pages is because the sets are viewed by thousands of people a day and get much more false info. Starstrike Blast has over 1.4 million page views and been messed-up loads of times. This edit to the rulings for "Snatch Steal" got reverted in less than hour. It's rulings page has had just over 3700 page views. 'Same with most other rulings pages that get false information. Some bits of false information might get slipped through and seen, but nowhere near as much as the sets and not significantly more than any other page. -- Deltaneos (talk) 18:39, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

As you allude to, Deltaneos, it's a question of scale. Card rulings pages (3000 of them, or 5000 including redlinks) get vandalized less than five times a day, all together, so implementing any higher level of protection on them isn't worth the overhead and effort. Upcoming sets, on the other hand, frequently get hit a dozen or more times a day, each (actually, I pulled that out of thin air; I haven't bothered to actually check), so the far lower number of such pages, combined with the higher total effort and time invested in reverting vandalism and nonsense is much more effectively countered by preventative semiprotection. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:34, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I just read through this and I wish to list the possible answers I see. I have been able to define at least four different possibilities, however some are quite extreme and should only be used as a last resort. The first I have is to (1) not do anything at all which will keep the same problems around. This I agree with on the Rulings Pages because it IS quite restrictive for the Rulings pages to be blocked from edits. I wish that only Mods/Admins could change them but it would be a lot of work for the Admins and I know I would not want to do that. The second option is to (2) block/ban any unregistered user from making edits on those pages, This I highly recomend for both New set pages as well as Rulings Pages however I would wish more severe for the Set/Packs Pages (as seen below). The third option I see is to (3) require each new update to also have the EXACT method of the update in the Talk page. This could be an example: A new card was found on X website, post link to website under the Talk page with a section heading listing a small summary or date/time of edit. Another Example would be something shown in Shonen Jump. This would have to reference the Issue (Year, Month) Location (USA, Japan, Ect...) and the page with a possible addition of the page itself scanned into the site. The final option I see would be the most severe: (4) a full block on the page with only Mods/Admins able to edit. All user additions will only be able to be posted on the talk page and a mod would sort through it and add that which is nessessary. I HIGHLY dislike this option, however it needs to be said. over all, I recommend option (1) or (2) for the Card Rulings Pages with a preference to (2) (I think this is already active), and I recommend option (3) or (4) for the new card sets with a preference for option (3). It should be noted that I only recommend that the card sets be left like this until their release. If this is done, I recommend spliting up the lists so that the English list version is kept locked while the Japan list can be edited because the Japan list will be active far earlier than the English list. Any Comments? --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 14:14, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

If a pack's page is protected, does that mean that the discussion page is also locked out? Jon Kovacs (talk • contribs) 04:04, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

No. The talk page will never be protected, so feel free to discuss things that you want to change and the reason in the talk page. Blackwings0605 (talk) 06:40, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Then why is this an issue? why not just lock the page, and as people get information on what is in the set, it can be put on the talk page? Jon Kovacs (talk • contribs) 03:52, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

This discussion has been dead for a while, and there wasn't any real opposition, so I think it's safe to call it as having consensus (we have been operating for the past couple of months as though it did, and as far as I know, no one has complained yet). In a nutshell (so you don't have to read the whole conversation above), this means:

• Pages on upcoming and newly-released sets may be preventively protected so that only registered users may edit them, since they are very high-profile and thus attractive targets for vandalism, false information, and rumors.
• If vandalism from registered users is a problem, the protection may be made more restrictive, so that only administrators can edit these pages.
• The talk pages of these pages will never be protected, allowing anyone (including unregistered users) to post new information and sources, and to suggest changes. The talk pages can also be used more informally, to post rumors about the sets which may or may not be true (though the source of these rumors should still be stated).

Feel free to ask any questions you may have. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 04:06, January 3, 2011 (UTC)