Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Administrative intervention against vandalism/2019-09-30 disruptive editing report

Reporting user Silverwing235 (talk | contribs) for a long-standing pattern of problematic editing. As an example, after the first 3 times Silverwing235 added this error, I explained the problem on Silverwing235's talk page. Silverwing235 removed that explanation with the comment "message received and understood", then less than a day later made the same edit a fourth time. Silverwing235 started making many problematic edits in July 2018, received a warning in January 2019, and has continued unabated since; just this weekend I wasted more than two hours reviewing and reverting this user's edits. Sadly, it appears nothing short of a block will stop the problematic editing.--Loci (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this. As I haven't been very active on the wiki recently, I don't want to take any administrative action on this alone, particularly since some of Silverwing235's edits that I've seen have been constructive (and I don't personally have a good sense of how many have been disruptive). Edit warring isn't good, though - if you've seen more instances of that, or a large number of disruptive edits recently, let me know. —Lethosor (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The last time you suggested doing nothing (nine months ago) it didn't work; I see no reason to assume the results will be different this time around. Since January, Silverwing235 has made 1779 edits, and I have made more than 265 reversions. You might then assume that means that 85% of Silverwing235's edits were "constructive", but the number is considerably lower; Silverwing235 tends to "serial-edit" the same article multiple times in a row and I revert to the last-good version with a single edit. In fact, Silverwing235 has the "current" edit on only 487 of those pages in that time frame, which charitably estimates the "constructive" edit rate somewhere around 50%. Anyway, this prolonged situation has sapped my desire to work on the wiki, so you'll need to find someone else to proofread Silverwing235's edits.--Loci (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think doing nothing is the solution, but I think some of these edits are pretty subjective. Of the edits you reverted today, I agree with [1] (although the section is admittedly inconsistent with its other 7 sibling sections), and [2] (although this is pretty minor, the "each" shouldn't have been removed). I think [3] was unclear both ways (only the first and third action led to the consequence in the same sentence, which I tried to address here). As for [4], you reverted several reasonable changes besides the singular "they"-related change. (I probably would have done the same after dealing with a number of earlier edits, to be fair.) I don't think "he" or "it" can apply to "dwarf or other creature" in every case, but regardless of that, singular "they" is controversial, as you have mentioned. Neither this wiki nor Wikipedia seem to take a strong stance on the matter, so in my book, it's a personal preference - it's not right or wrong. I am unwilling to take administrative action over it, and I don't want to see edit wars over it either (i.e. going forward, I will side in favor of whatever choice was made in the article before it was changed). —Lethosor (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I hate to add to this old thread, but, as it has been raised before, it seems appropriate. As Loci said in 2019, this is a long-standing pattern, and this user makes a large number of edits every month. One example: [5], [6], [7]. I was an active editor on the wiki some years ago—not that it matters—and since I rejoined, this kind of editing showing up in the recent changes has been a huge distraction from any other editing I mean to do. I know this isn't Wikipedia, but this kind of editing—literally declaiming “stylistic [sic] sense be damned” in edit summaries (which are always marked m—why?)—is the reason why Wikipedia has policies like WP:CIR, WP:DE, WP:DDE, and especially WP:IDHT. It's hard to consider any wiki editing productive when there is no constraint on this behavior. The large number of similar edits (often "serial" edits, as Loci mentioned) performed by this single editor means that anything another editor adds will probably be similarly “fixed” within a few months. —οɼѕаk 21:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to add my own third-person (second-person?) perspective on this. One of being a non-native English writer prone to making the kind of mistakes SilverWing fixes. Thanks to that, I (and others) don’t have to worry as much about perfecting the language while adding information, which makes adding. Conversely, I believe the strict rules of Wikipedia makes it harder for new editors to join. For Wikipedia, this may be a positive as it increases the quality, but this wiki is one starved for editors and can thus not afford such luxuries. It is true that SilverWing has a pattern of editing recently edited articles, which may bury those recent edits. As to why, my suspicion (backed up by what I remember them writing about it on the forum) is that they read the edit to check for errors/bad grammar, and then skim through the rest of the article while they are at it. The ’m’ is to mark that they didn’t add any info, only refactor what was already available. That way other wiki editors can chose to ignore those edits. (I believe that is the intended usage of the ’m’inor edit mark, am I wrong?) I’ve not seen them ”fix”/revert anything but changes to the syntax. They are obviously stubborn when it comes to that, perhaps in excess, but it should not disturb you when adding content. I believe that worry is unfounded. Ultimately, while grammar is subjective means not all of SilverWing’s edits are clearly productive, but I’d still argue that having someone like them adds a certain polish to the wiki we would otherwise miss out on. —Voliol (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary: Silverwing235 often introduces errors in both grammar and syntax. That is actually the point of this thread.—οɼѕаk 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem I have with that assessment is that, from the (admittedly not thorough) looks I've had at Silverwing235's edit history, a lot of edits have been productive. Some have fixed mistakes that other editors have introduced, like Voliol described, which has a positive impact on the wiki. As for how to deal with the edits that introduce errors, see my comment below. —Lethosor (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they always introduce errors, but they often do. On Wikipedia, this was once a fairly common problem, but a variety of policies have reduced both its occurrence and its impact. WP editors who consistently try to make “corrections” to a narrow set of linguistic features, often committing certain kinds of error—for example, “correcting” occurrences of “or” so that it is almost always preceded by a comma—are considered disruptive, even if many of their edits are productive. And while this wiki isn't Wikipedia, and has its own specific needs, etc., the problem is probably about the same (though it might ultimately be worse for this wiki, since the number of editors active on a given day is a tiny fraction). —οɼѕаk 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on [8]. A comma might have been a better choice than a semicolon, but no punctuation there makes the sentence more difficult to parse. This is a situation where I would encourage a talk page or user page discussion as appropriate. I do think your most recent edit was a good compromise, though. [Edit: maybe the comma should have gone after "visitor" instead, but that's beside the point - this was a good-faith attempt to make the article more readable, and it should have been responded to with an improvement, not a reversion.]
More generally, I don't want to block individual users for making edits like this. I have been keeping an eye on Special:RecentChanges, and I think most of Silverwing235's changes in recent months have been uncontroversial compared to the ones that Loci originally report here. I am willing to temporarily lock pages in the cases of arguments being made in edit summaries, such as the one you and Silverwing participated in here, if necessary.
I think I agree with Voliol for the most part, and invoking wikipedia:WP:CIR doesn't seem appropriate to me. Some edit summaries don't make sense, but I think that minor changes are generally tagged appropriately, and you can filter them out from Special:RecentChanges if you like. —Lethosor (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Re [9]: that's why I finally edited it myself. Silverwing235's edit introduced errors rather than fix it. To be honest, I don't have time to clarify the rest of this. See my edit history since I rejoined just a few weeks ago. It's enough for me to see that a long-time editor like Loci actually appears to have abandoned the wiki over similar problems—I, myself, am probably out as well. There just isn't time. I wanted to add to articles relevant to modding, now that DF has undergone several updates (and much of the information about the raws here appears to be outdated or “partially correct” since then). That no one has addressed Silverwing235's behavior is surprising. I have huge respect for you, otherwise, Lethosor, but I think you've got the wrong impression here. —οɼѕаk 20:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: same editor makes same erroneous edit again, weeks after edit warring (which was originally resolved by [10] and the subsequent page protection you applied). This is circumvention. —οɼѕаk 20:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there was an attempt to fix the run-on sentence there originally, and I would typically tend to agree with Wikipedia:WP:NOTPERFECT. That is, I think that since there was an attempt to improve the article, other editors should prefer to continue to improve the article, or figure out some mutually-agreeable solution, rather than simply reverting changes. However,

in this case, I see why Wikipedia:WP:IDHT could apply, given that the error was reverted multiple times (I think this is more oriented towards lengthy discussions, not edit warring, but it could be applied to the latter too).

I understand that attempting to improve erroneous edits is more time-consuming than simply reverting them. I often don't have time to screen everything myself.

I appreciate your concern for the wiki, and I don't want to drive editors away. We need the kind of content that you want to add, just as much as we need the types of fixes Silverwing235 is attempting to make. I would like to find some solution that can allow everyone to contribute.

If Silverwing235 is making a lot of erroneous edits, to the point where the quality of the wiki is negatively impacted, then I agree that something should be done.

Here is my proposal - over the next couple weeks, I will look over as many of Silverwing235's edits as I can, focusing on more recent ones. I will note any that I consider productive or counterproductive, although I may not be able to address all of the latter. You're welcome to flag any that you think I should consider, although you're under no obligation to. If I notice a significant number of counterproductive edits, I will send them over to Silverwing235 (and link them here). After that, if similar edits continue, I think that would warrant more warnings and/or administrative action (again, I would greatly prefer not to take severe steps like an immediate block). What do you think of this? If there are ways that Wikipedia handles situations like this, I'd be open to hearing about them too. —Lethosor (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I want to briefly address a question sort of implicit in the phrasing of your first point. I really don't think you intended to raise it, but a random reader skipping to this part of the thread might not realize that.
Do I object to anyone's trying to improve the wiki? Of course not.
I don't know whether I've written anything that might give someone that impression, but I hope this explicit statement is enough to quell any doubts. Editors should try to improve the wiki, and editors will make mistakes in the process. That is not the subject of this discussion.

Regarding NOTPERFECT: I'm not sure if this is cited much outside the context of articles, often new or simply low-activity, which have existing issues, where either the article has been nominated for deletion or doubts about its suitability have been raised in talk or somewhere else. It's especially used as a defense against deletionists and exclusionists (though historically, that has rarely prevented a controversial deletion, particularly when it was inevitable).

It's also applicable when one or more editors have made substantial additions to an article, where the editors' spelling, grammar, organization, formatting etc. are not quite right (insufficient or poor sourcing usually triggers another set of considerations, but I would include it here as well, as long as the content isn't controversial or BLP etc.). But I don't think I've ever witnessed such an instance where anyone actually needed to cite this policy in a discussion that followed. (Not that I think I'm wrong about its applicability in those cases, just that they seem to “handle themselves” by virtue of other editors' assessment of the content. I think there are a few reasons for that, including the relative breadth and number of Wikipedia articles; the number of active editors, administrators, bureaucrats, etc.; and the imponderable volume of views and edits each day.)

To me, this case—a single editor repeatedly introducing new issues to articles which (while themselves NOTPERFECT) did not already have such issues, usually in the process of making miscellaneous other minor edits that do not substantially contribute to the content—is not an instance of either of those scenarios.
An editor who knows that a minor correction needs to be made should make that correction; but when in doubt (such as when an editor's judgment of a particular kind of correction has repeatedly led them astray), unless something substantial is being added, it's not necessarily productive to make a guess. For example, Silverwing235 has usually been correct in their adjustment of capitalization and plural formation intra-wiki links. But with respect to several other categories of edit (mostly also copy-, but not always—e.g., [11]) which Silverwing235 gravitates to, they continue to make certain adjustments which they have been repeatedly corrected on (and in some cases advised not to make at all, in order to avoid further issue).

This is particularly troubling where it relates to similar edits which suggest the editor is imposing idiosyncratic usage (nonstandard punctuation, grammar, diction, etc., or a preference for one x over another where the extant form is equivalent or better) even after being informed of the mistake and asked to avoid repeating it. As (I think) Loci suggested somewhere, on Wikipedia this really is considered disruptive editing.

About your proposal: before I read your most recent posts to this discussion, I actually started to write a note about a series of troubling edits from just the last two days that relate to the subject of this thread as well as the User_talk spillover which began with Silverwing235's own comments on their own talk page. If you don't mind, I'd like to take more time to read and respond to the entirety of what you wrote here (after “Here is my proposal”). But since I was going to post this note here anyway—again, only because from my point of view, this is part of a pattern of ongoing behavior which has already impacted the wiki, not because I think every problem edit deserves to be highlighted on this board (which I don't)—it might as well be part of the reply.

Examples from just one article over two days:

1. [12] unnecessary revision, introduces erroneous punctuation; buried in history due to string of “serial edits”

   Relevant prior diffs include: [13], [14] (not an exhaustive list).

2. [15] totally elective revision, also erroneous

   Edit summary suggests indifference to whether their basis is even true. Again, I think it's reasonable to expect the editor to be able to articulate a rationale for their edits. In Silverwing235's case, actually, it would help them to avoid this kind of problem altogether (and probably improve the quality of their editing) if they actually tried to do so before making each edit. Rather than immediately revising something that they don't like the look of, they could first ask themselves some simple questions about what they're about to change; the answers to those questions would be used to write an actual edit summary (which, although they've been asked to write more thorough summaries, they didn't quite do in this case).

   Note: I followed up on this revert with a detailed response, which I only felt necessary because of this editor's persistence in making superficial changes that needlessly eliminate or render incorrect other editors' contributions. I would not ordinarily feel this was worth saying, but the general point has been made—and made forcefully—several times in the past. Why should an editor make changes when they can't articulate the reasons for those changes? Editors may be guided by instinct, but their revisions are supposed to be supported by more than their personal feeling about how something looks or sounds. Again, it's not that I think you don't know this; I'm simply trying to explain my tone.

3. [16] a day later, same article, another unnecessary revision focusing on the same paragraph which was reverted the day before

   Uses a semicolon to combine an introductory sentence with the first of the following sequence of sentences which describe elements of the subject.

   I saw that you sifted this one and partially restored the prior version. I think at this point, the editor should have stopped trying to edit the superficial structure of the same paragraph. There are other articles to work on. Otherwise, sequences of similar edits and reverts can be construed (from the history) as a fixated attempt to circumvent consensus (re changes which were proscribed earlier).

4. [17] next day, same article; unnecessary rewording introduces idiosyncratic commas
5. [18] minutes later (“serial edit”) to same article; another revision to the paragraph “Outside of the keep...”

   Another instance in which this editor asserts that the original author made a mistake (“butterfingered”) where there really wasn't one.

   Instead, this revision introduces an erroneous semicolon in a new place.

   Again, from the diffs and history, this (as the latest of a sequence of related edits) begins to “look” like a fixation with inserting a semicolon somewhere. The paragraph didn't need any structural changes, nor did its tone or diction need to be rethought. Yet, after attempting to do all of these things, facing a revert each time, the editor persisted (introducing further errors where, initially, there were none).

At no stage in this process did the editor produce any rationale for the later changes they made to the very same sentences they'd targeted earlier—not even after being reverted several times.

Worse than that, many of these errors are of the same general kind as have previously been brought to the editor's attention (insertion of extraneous commas and semicolons; insertion of hyphens and clusters of other characters to produce punctuation nonconformal with English usage (usually in sentences that were already syntactically correct); incorrect or unnecessary merging of sentences or paragraphs; incorrect or unnecessary word substitution).

I genuinely would rather not be in the position of suggesting that an editor is doing something wrong that requires admin attention (whatever form that might take). I have no ill will toward the editor in question, but the process—including issuing advice which has already been given before (which is frequently already covered by MOS, besides), only to see that advice disregarded almost immediately (occasionally accompanied by comments with overt disregard for CIVIL, as I mentioned on your talk page), requiring further note-taking and further discussion on this board—has become tedious.

I'll think about what you wrote in your proposal and write another (hopefully shorter) reply, if I think I have a useful suggestion. Obviously WP has advantages in this area which would be unrealistic or impractical for the wiki's purposes, but I don't think that's really an issue. It's not a matter of life or death, here, either; so, although I mean this commentary sincerely, I have no dear expectations about the outcome. (I do hope that the editor will take specific steps to learn to change their editing process, but as new editors come and go, the issue is bound to come around again, as it does on WP as well.) I'll try to continue participating constructively, though.

—οɼѕаk 03:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your April 5 update: the new edit and the old edit are not quite the same, but are equally incorrect. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. —Lethosor (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've encouraged Silverwing to leave better edit summaries, and to move discussions to talk pages if needed. Hopefully this helps encourage more productive changes like [19]. I do still want to be informed if you notice a persistent pattern of issues, but this looks to me like a single argument that stands out from a more recent pattern of mostly-helpful edits. —Lethosor (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the last thing I care to say about it: [20], as a response to [21] (which the user removed—why?), is egregious. From this and from my own observations just skimming their edit history, I don't know how this user never saw consequences.—οɼѕаk 20:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking back on that, I think that should have drawn a warning. Initially, I was mostly focused on trying to understand the meaning of that comment, and didn't consider that it was worded as harshly as it was. I understand your comment on WP:AAGF better now. As for removing discussions on user pages, I still think my comment on Wikipedia:WP:OWNTALK is relevant. That's why I'd prefer to keep the discussion on disruptive editing here, since removing parts of this discussion is not acceptable. Maintaining references to relevant discussions here is also helpful, so thank you for those. —Lethosor (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad the problem with the wording has been acknowledged, but there's something there (something important, I think) which you didn't address: Silverwing235's response on Loci's page (a day before they reinstated the idiosyncratic incorrect usage in question) says that Silverwing235 is not concerned with whether the original was correct and whether their revision was wrong. After being shown in detail that the original was correct, and that their revision was not, they referred to the original as

some sort of highly, blatantly obvious spelling/grammar mistake, that honestly needed (or so I thought) no edit summary to [...] stay correct

Even from my brief interaction with them, it's clear this point of view persists. And if it were merely a case of their not getting the point or simply not reading, I would actually find it easier to understand. But given the rest of their statement, I doubt that was the case then, and I doubt that's the case now; to wit,

Yes, its a mistake to me, hence the corrections in the first place [...]

How to proceed other than leaving it alone (as you seem to have insinuated with your "an usage" interjection on my talk page, unfortunately)? I mean, yeah, [spelling and grammar], corrected thus: "[...] an ubiquitous feature"

(Emphasis added by me.)

This editor persists in imposing idiosyncratic (often incorrect) usage rules, and in discussion of their errors, continues to refer to the original versions as mistakes, and their (incorrect or unwarranted) changes as corrections.

I.e., I Didn't Hear That.

On first read, I, too, took time to parse the discussion there—formatting confusion aside, it was hard to understand without looking at all the diffs ([22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]), noticing the summary in which Loci included a link to Silverwing235's talk.

Which, actually, I think I must have tried to click before, but the thread of that conversation was difficult to follow. The only reason I was at Silverwing235's talk page to begin with was to find out if anyone had raised these issues with them before. Loci had, but Silverwing235 appeared to have disregarded each instance in which Loci advised them that their edits were incorrect.

Actually, when Loci pointed out that repeated elective edits (especially resulting in the same incorrect idiosyncratic usages) would constitute disruptive editing—

Repeatedly modifying acceptable page layouts and punctuation to suit your personal taste is disruptive.

—and you spot-checked some of the reverts involved, notice that Silverwing235's response actually blames Loci for even raising the issue:

[...] what I was trying to do, and thought I had done, before 'Loci, Vandalfinder Mod' came along with their reverts (Not that I want anyone to take on that role with regards to me in particular, it's rather annoying [...]

And then, in response to your fourth bullet point (re singular they, Since your changes have led to some disagreements, I'm going to ask you to avoid changing any existing content related to singular "they" (this applies to things that use it and things that don't).), Silverwing235 seems to get the wrong message:

3 & 4: Not much to say here, other than: thanks for the assist and I wholeheartedly agree with you about the personal preference thing?

(Emphasis added.)

And in fact, this behavior is ongoing in 2021, even though you explicitly asked the user to avoid it. I've only been back on the wiki for a few weeks. I haven't actually trawled Silverwing235's past contribs, which, given the number of issues I've noticed, ought to be surprising.

—οɼѕаk 16:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)