Forum:Character articles protection list

This is a closed discussion about an accepted proposed change on SmashWiki. It remains for archival purposes. The closing administrator adds: "Character articles will not be protected, but we will protect update list templates. SerpentKing 18:44, January 3, 2020 (EST)"

Due to technical reasons, protecting all of these articles in the manor we were planning will not be possible. The protection will still be applied via bot. SerpentKing 19:08, January 3, 2020 (EST)

In lieu of recent misinformation being added to our character articles, we've come up with the idea of restricting edits to these articles to autoconfirmed status. This is too big a change to simply implement without a consensus though, so please do voice any comments, questions, and concerns below. SerpentKing 09:48, December 17, 2019 (EST)

Support

1. Full support*. The SSBU pages are edited by IPs pretty much on a daily basis, and they keep worsening the quality of the article (particularly the changelists) by either repeatedly adding misinformation, worsening their readability by bloating up paragraphs with information that is already organized properly, or putting their bias in those articles by either sugarcoating or exaggerating the characters' flaws (here's an example of such). At this point, it's getting tiring to have other users constantly revert them. If you look at most SSBU character pages' edit histories, particularly Kirby, Zelda, and Mario, these IPs seem to follow a constant pattern (edit change sections, do any of those three aforementioned actions), even after every revert, and don't leave these pages alone; in the former two, the edit warring got so bad that they have been already protected multiple times, and ever since, they have mantained a much more consistent quality. There seems to be an IP in particular that keeps changing their IP number and range, and goes specifically to SSBU pages to submit these unconstructive edits, seemingly never listening to anyone else even after I've tried to contact them, and also insisting on having their way after the pages in question get protected. Then there's another IP that keeps tampering with the update history changelogs, likewise worsening their redaction and even removing a large chunk of information in the process.
   
   It's really hard to keep track of the specific users, which is what would be done in other cases (Toomai even did a range block once, and that didn't help at all), and I think these SSBU pages need a lot of quality checking; they're currently among our most relevant pages, people constantly gather information about the game (it's also been datamined for months now), and the changelists entail detailed and technical information that few users understand properly (much less casual editors without accounts), so allowing misinformation in these pages to still be repeatedly added on the fly is very detrimental. I firmly believe this proposal would improve the wiki.
   
   Also, for the record, I agree with this specifically in regards to the changelists (Changes from SSB4 and update history). I don't think it's too necessary for moveset subpages either (though they fall under a similar category). I would prefer to still keep other parts of the pages edit-able, since there's not nearly as much trouble there, but the wiki doesn't have per-section protection, and I don't know if such thing can be achieved. DracoRex, Creator of the Land 10:26, December 17, 2019 (EST)
   
   *EDIT: Seeing SK's proposal to move the changelists to templates, I think this would be a better idea to keep them restricted to autoconfirmed users without protecting the rest of the pages' content (since then you can just protect the templates) . I still support the proposal in spirit, but I'd take this new solution instead of a full protection of the pages.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DracoRexKing (talk • contribs) 10:48, December 17, 2019 (EST)
2. Strong support (template): I was also originally in support of protecting the pages, but I like SK's idea of putting the changelists to templates that are auto protected (though, tbh, I think established protection would be better but auto confirmed is better than nothing). I don't have much else to add that Draco hasn't already said other than I have personally seen the effect of allowing IPs to tamper with vital information as the wiki is frequently scoffed amongst competitive circles due to frequent false information being added, which only makes people lose a lot of trust in us as a reliable source of information. Data that is objective (i.e. information with zero room for debate and not up for opinions, such as data that is pulled directly from the game that can be easily proof checked) should be protected from overzealous, opinionated people for the sake of our integrity if we want to be a reliable source of information for the competitive scene. VoqéoT 11:53, December 17, 2019 (EST)
3. Support for entire page The main character pages are too readily visible for the risk of IPs/new users messing around to be worthwhile. The technical pages are way too detailed for most people to adequately ensure the quality of, and those people are virtually guaranteed to be at least autoconfirmed, if not established. DekZek 12:34, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   Upon Reading everyone else's comments and thinking about it more, changing my vote to Strongly Support for Templates/subpages, Neutral on main pages DekZek 21:24, December 27, 2019 (EST)

4. Support, but for the template. It'd be much easier to control (for lack of a better word) the information specifically regarding a character's attributes and technical data if it was put aside as a linked template, and that were protected. That way, only the specific section of information can be taken care of, and we don't have to worry about any complete and utter shutdown of editing. I was never in on the idea of outright forbidding IPs from editing, but I also think that something has to be done. Aidan, the Festive Rurouni 12:48, December 17, 2019 (EST)
5. Support the template. Not much to say that hasn't been said above. Although I would love full protection for character articles, IPs have helped write many parts of the articles. Furthermore, the issue here mostly lies in the attributes and technical data, so I believe template proposal would fix it. CookiesCreme 21:13, December 17, 2019 (EST)
6. Support template Allowing IPs to edit technical data is not a good idea, but at the same time, restricting the pages only to autoconfirmed users is too big of a streach. I'd say templating them is a good idea. SupαToαd64 20:48, December 17, 2019 (EST)
7. Support either way - I'm not a big supporter of restricting IP edits, but if they are becoming a constant problem, then measures need to be taken. People that do want to help out (or cause trouble, either way) can just make an account to make it easier on them and the admins. Alex95 (talk) 17:42, December 18, 2019 (EST)
8. Support either way. I'd be in support of blocking IP editing entirely like Zelda Wiki or Fire Emblem Wiki, as I believe that leads to a much greater degree of quality control, and there are a lot of pages outside of just the SSBU character pages that are harmed by IPs who don't follow the manual of style or just outright want to vandalize (see for example Super Smash Bros. Melee or All-Star Mode). However, I understand that not everyone would want to take it that far. While wikis are intended to be a group effort, creating an account with the wiki is simple enough that, if one wishes to be a regular editor or at least modify major content like the SSBU character pages, restricting certain pages to confirmed accounts is no hurdle at all. ~ Serena Strawberry (talk) 19:02, December 20, 2019 (EST)

   I'm aware that this is not what is up for discussion at the moment, but I nevertheless would like to say that completely restricting IP edits on the Wiki is not a good idea at all. By doing so you completely alienate the people who want to contribute to the wiki but do not wish to make an account, and you make the Wiki much less open to others in general, especially people who use the Wiki and want to quickly correct a mistake they noticed, only to be told that they must first create an account on the wiki. There is a reason why this practice is not carried out on Wikipedia after all... Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 19:16, December 20, 2019 (EST)

You can't really compare us with Wikipedia. Their staff is significantly greater than ours, so they have an easier time catching when IPs make a mistake or vandalize an article. We have a small community with about 1-2 active administrators each day, so it's harder to catch IPs making "bad" edits. CookiesCreme 20:27, December 20, 2019 (EST)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose. For some time now I've been dissatisfied with the direction the Wiki has been moving in. SmashWiki, like all Wikis, is intended to be a community effort, so when we continue to increasingly alienate a significant proportion of our editor base, we consequently move further and further away from the spirit of what a Wiki is. I understand that certain character articles may need to be semi-protected for a period of time, but the proposal here is to semi-protect every single Ultimate character article and all their related subpages, which I believe is a step too far. By doing so, we are causing multiple issues, including:

   • Cutting off a significant number of helpful IP editors from a large number of articles, including many who for one reason or another do not wish to make an account, which is very much understandable.
   • Making the Wiki much less open to new users on the site, potentially discouraging them from becoming long-time editors.
   • Reducing the number of routes to autoconfirmation that new users have, by preventing them from making contributions on the newest, and therefore most needing of attention, character articles, making the already potentially daunting task to some users of making 10 contributions even more difficult.

   For these reasons, I am very strongly against the idea of taking such a drastic step, especially since I am very skeptical about whether these articles will ever end up being unprotected again, as I have seen an increasing trend in articles being left protected long after the issue that caused the protection in the first place has gone away. Please do not do this. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 10:06, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   I think that your point is valid but also that you are overblowing its proportion. Character pages might be the most obvious "newest" pages, but there's also special moves, stages, items, bosses, and such. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 10:13, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   That may be true, but the character articles are much larger in comparison to the other articles, and thus require significantly more contributions. Regardless, this is still a step in the wrong direction, and one I doubt will be undone any time soon if it passes, therefore adding another large log to the fire as it were. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 10:18, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   I'd like to point out that, as an encyclopedia of information, it is our job to report on the facts. When those facts become misinterpreted and make way for people trying to state those misinterpretations as other facts of their own, the whole of the wiki becomes a conglomerate of misinformation that people have, and will, ridicule us for. Aidan, the Festive Rurouni 12:49, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   You certainly are getting a lot of mileage out of that one reddit thread. But regardless, it's generally easier to remove opinions from pages than it is to add actually useful information, and there are many IPs who are willing to do both, so I don't really find this very convincing. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 12:55, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   Whether or not it's repeatedly used in an argument doesn't change the validity of it. And it becomes a problem when, in regards to moving opinions, the same person keeps fighting back and will not go away. It is counterproductive for the wiki to continuously remove falsehoods when something, such as this, could easily be done to prevent it from happening in the first place. Aidan, the Birthday Rurouni 17:26, December 18, 2019 (EST)

   The incident with that individual has nothing to do with inserting false information, and thus is irrelevant to this discussion. Especially since he has targeted non-fighter articles as well. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 17:32, December 18, 2019 (EST)

2. Strong oppose. Cutting off IPs from editing could be incredibly counterproductive, because while many IPs are assholes and regularly vandalize the site there is a large amount of IPs that actually provide beneficial edits and like Alex said, some people may be incapable of creating account for one reason or another and cutting them off simply because other people are pricks could discourage them from helping SmashWiki grow. Obviously, people will be people and continue to vandalize the site but character articles are quite popular pages and people add helpful information to them basically every day. More people being open to edit prominent pages like these is in the spirit of the wiki and there must be a better way to consistently deal with the vandals. I'm sure our userbase is competent enough to find a better solution, one of which has already been proposed. Your Senpai, Iron Warrior 12:27, December 17, 2019 (EST)

1. Strong oppose. If we restrict editing so heavily, the pages run a greater risk of carrying incorrect or outdated information for a long time. Smash Wiki has been ridiculed for outdated information in the past and allowing as many people to edit in good faith as possible could help a long way in preventing this. --Pontiusbrave (talk) 10:02, January 1, 2020 (EST)

It should be noted, however, that we have also been ridiculed for false information from IPs, and that's to a greater extent, especially recently. CookiesCreme 10:03, January 1, 2020 (EST)

Neutral

1. I was always of the opinion that allowing IPs/newbies to edit the technical data pages was a bit...counterproductive, for lack of a better word. But when the main character pages are brought into it, I'm not a fan of the idea. This is mostly because the main character pages have a mix of technical info (e.g. changelists) and general info (e.g. taunt descriptions). Maybe for them, a better answer is splitting out some stuff into protected subpages for transclusion. Toomai Glittershine The Superlative 10:07, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   Maybe templating them up like what we did with SSB4? SerpentKing 10:17, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   ...Great idea, actually. It worked for the update histories in SSB4, and it's more in line with why I'm supporting the proposal (I'd like to have IPs restricted from the changelists, not the entire pages). Maybe re-focus it towards this instead? DracoRex, Creator of the Land 10:37, December 17, 2019 (EST)

# Allowing IPs to edit technical data is not a good idea, but at the same time, restricting the pages only to autoconfirmed users is too big of a streach. I'd say templating them is a good idea. SupαToαd64 20:48, December 17, 2019 (EST)

Comments

We are not talking about blocking IP edits from the entire wiki, please stop bringing that up SerpentKing 20:11, December 27, 2019 (EST)

Why are IPs even allowed to edit technical data in the first place? Stuff like that, as well as artwork, songlists, and what not, isn't going to be changing barring the rare case of an update, and such data should never be under dispute if it's actually been pulled from the game. Blocking them from the entire page though........eh. The character pages are more than just the competitive stuff, and if I recall IPs don't routinely worsen those sections. Sure, we blocked the alternate costume pages from IP edits for similar reasons, but the subject matter of those articles is significantly more speculative and judgemental, so discussion of most edits is a given. In all honesty, IPs seeming unawareness of talk pages seems to be a bigger issue compared to them spreading misinformation. If they were willing to at least discuss with the Wiki's editors why their edits aren't helpful, it would save the userbase the headache of constantly having to revert and IPs from trying to force them through and not understanding why they keep being rejected. While I don't know of an exact method to accomplish that, outside of making it the site notice in big bold letters, I can't say shunting the entire article away is it. - EndGenuity (talk) 21:14, December 27, 2019 (EST)

A site notice isn't going to do anything if they are ignoring posts to their talk pages. SerpentKing 21:34, December 27, 2019 (EST)

That is sadly very true :/. - EndGenuity (talk) 21:39, December 27, 2019 (EST)