UESPWiki talk:Vandalism

Related Discussions
Archived discusssions about the Vandalism policy

Reverting Question

Is there a more correct way of doing this than just editing a prior versdion of the page. I note everyone but me has nice little standard Revertsion messages Jadrax 12:46, 6 February 2007 (EST)

The Admins have that, since we're expected to do more of the patrolling.--Ratwar 12:59, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Everyone's help with reverting vandalism is definitely welcome (and thanks for the cleanups that you've been doing, Jadrax). The most important thing is just to remove the vandalism, in whatever way you prefer to do it. As Ratwar said, the admins have a special "rollback" tool that does a few steps all in one, and always spits out that standard message. The standard "revert" message is actually pretty bad, though. It doesn't give any feedback about what was wrong with the original edit, which means that if the original editor looks at the page history to find out what was wrong with their contribution, they are given absolutely no information. In cases of clear vandalism, that's not a real concern, but in any case where there's even a chance that the editor was trying to make a legitimate contribution, the edit summary really should provide some explanation. So in other words, you should not try to emulate the ugly "revert" message, but should instead provide some sort of useful edit summary. --Nephele 13:35, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Good good, just checking I wasen't supposed to be doing it a preset way. Tbh I only tend to revert obvious vandalism as it really, really annoys me. (This is what working with children does to your tiny little mind.) Jadrax 19:07, 6 February 2007 (EST)

I know this isn't topic, but what does a page like this qualify as? It and the accompanying history is too bizarre for me to figure out since it seems to show that it wasn't vandalized, I was just curious if it's suppose to have all that madness or what. I remember a user getting mad because an admin took "damn" off his user page. --AlbinoMudcrab 20:09, 6 February 2007 (EST)

That's what uniblab chose to have for his user page; it hasn't been vandalized (or at least, the one case of vandalism was reverted). Bizarre, madness, offbeat sense of humour... take your pick :) In any case, it's his choice as to what to have on his user page. --Nephele 22:30, 6 February 2007 (EST)

It's all good with me, just trying to look out for the guy, if that's how he rolls then I guess it takes all types to make the internet, and probably even stranger types to make the UESP. --AlbinoMudcrab 01:39, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Notes on Past Revisions / Aristeo and booyah_boy

I'm taking a moment to justify my edits, ere they are - once more - modified.

First:

ARISTEO: "Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is fairly rare and it's usually easy to spot."

Proper English grammar demands that a sentence be fluent both with and without the inclusion of "and" and the preceeding content requiring such. Thus, without such the sentence would read:

"Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is it's usually easy to spot."

Obviously, this is poor grammar. Thus, the sentence must read:

"Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is usually easy to spot."

The sentence, however, contains a precondition, that is, a defining characteristic related to the noun (in this case, the "wiki") is included: "fairly rare". Thus, the sentence with such alone reads:

"Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is fairly rare."

Thus, combining the disparate sentences.
"Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is fairly rare."
...and...
"Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is usually easy to spot."
...should read as:
"Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is fairly rare and usually easy to spot."
For that reason, I ask that this edit not be revised incorrectly anymore. Thank you.

Second:

ARISTEO: "...deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the wiki."

booyah_boy: "...deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity or craftsmanship of the wiki."

I ask that the words italicized above continue to be included, as Aristeo's statement reads that vandalism is only such when it tries to ruin the cohesive structure of the wiki, whilst mine makes inclusion for said attempts while also stating that vandalism is such when it makes an attempt to ruin the style and contents of the wiki. -- Booyah boy 21:49, 25 September 2006 (EDT)

I agree completely with the first point, but not so much with the second. Integrity, like you said, refers to the state of being undiminished and unimpaired, and the word fits in pretty well into the context. However, I have never heard the word craftsmanship in relation to web design, regardless on if the site is a wiki or not. Craftsmanship refers to talent in an occupation that requires a special skill, such as wood carving or other artisan trades. "...compromise the [...] craftsmanship", to me, sounds like something that should be on a page like UESPWiki:Ludditism rather than on this page.

Something that you didn't mention that I would like to bring up is the replacement of "Please give careful consideration to whether the new information is correct, false but submitted in good faith, or obvious vandalism." with "Members are cautioned to give careful consideration to the circumstances prior to declaring an action as vandalism, as the edit may have been made accidentally or in good faith.". The biggest challenge relating to vandalism that we have on the wiki is trying to determine the difference between "ignorant edits", "moronic edits", and "pure vandalism". I phrased the sentence the way I did to try to point out the edits that seem to be bad but are actually good, the edits that are the result of ignorance, and the edits from people that actually want to harm our site. Also, to declare means to state something officially and with emphasis, which is something we definitely don't want to do with vandalism. On the other hand, we also don't want to say "...to give careful consideration before reporting vandalism", because then editors would be too nervous to report anything in fear that they might mess up and be blamed for it.

I will cease and desist editing the description and allow your version to stand until we can come to an agreement or invite a third party into the discussion that can help us both out. As I said in my last edit summary, we'll perfect this introduction eventually. --Aristeo 22:46, 25 September 2006 (EDT)

I'll admit, my main reaction to all of this is that it's alot of effort being put into revising one page that fundamentally isn't read by too many people (600 page hits, probably half of which are from admins on the site). The last three versions of the page have been basically sound, and the edits haven't been fixing blatant mistakes, but have really been more about matters of personal style. Wouldn't it be more useful to put the effort into revising some pages that have unambiguous grammatical and vocabulary errors?

In terms of the specific points raised here:

• "Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is fairly rare and it's usually easy to spot". I don't follow Booyah Boy's arguments here. There are two independent clauses which can be separated into grammatically correct sentences: "Fortunately, abuse of the wiki is fairly rare" and "It's usually easy to spot". Joining those two clauses with a conjunction is grammatically valid and does not require "it's" to be deleted. Strict grammar might require a comma before the "and" in this case (coordinating conjuctions should be preceded by a comma). Just to be completely sure on this point, I pulled out one of my grammar texts, and one of its examples is grammatically identical to this sentence.
• "Integrity and craftsmanship". I don't see how the addition of "craftsmanship" accomplishes Booyah's Boy goal. "Craftsmanship" does not imply anything about content, and therefore does not change the meaning from "cohesive structure" to "style and contents". "Integrity" either in the sense of "the state of being whole" or in the sense of "a perfect condition" seems to be perfectly capable of implying the entirety of the wiki, i.e. both content and style.
• "Please give careful consideration...." I think Aristeo makes some valid points above about how he chose to write the original sentence. In particular, "declare" is too strong a verb in this context. I've been involved in a couple cases where an action was misinterpreted as vandalism; the act of adding a person's name to this page does not cause their edits to be irrevokably considered vandalism.

I think it's important to keep in mind that a wiki is a collaborative effort. Alot of different people contribute to the site, each with their own ideas of what is most appropriate. And generally there is no single correct answer for how to write something; this is especially true when it comes to questions of wording. Therefore, I feel that it is best when revising what someone else has already written to avoid edits that are primarily stylistic. Furthermore, in this case on any questions of content I would tend to defer to Aristeo's opinion, given that this is a primarily administrative page and that he initially wrote the content. Of course, I'm not trying to say that no one else should edit the page; I'm just trying to resolve the stalemate on this particular issue.

So that's my two (or more) cents on this issue. Hopefully my comments will provide a third opinion that will help to resolve this issue. --Nephele 00:26, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

I will cease and desist editing the description and allow your version to stand until we can come to an agreement or invite a third party into the discussion that can help us both out. As I said in my last edit summary, we'll perfect this introduction eventually.

Precisely. It was for that reason - to get this worked out so we can move on to more important matters - I posted this.

I would also like to thank you, Nephele, for joining in. Furthermore, I would like to thank you for bringing to the fore some very telling points, namely:

• ...[it] is a primarily administrative page...
• ...[it] isn't read by too many people...
• ...[it's] really been more about matters of personal style.

Insofar as Aristeo being the original poster is concerned that, I believe, is utterly irrelevant.

Insofar as the issue of "craftsmanship" is concerned, I am more than willing to let that one go, although I do maintain my stance on such; still, I return to Nepehele's points.

I'll perform one last edit on such, amending the page to include both Aristeo's and my own additions, then leave it up to you guys. Sound fair? -- Booyah boy 00:53, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

It's a win-win situation. It's more than fair in my opinion. I hope you see it as win-win, too. --Aristeo 01:27, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

Certainly. I'm glad that was so easily resolved, and so quickly. -- Booyah boy 05:49, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

Collaboration at its finest :) --Aristeo 13:52, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

Would this qualify?

I noticed two edits by the same anon (seen here and here), I'm not sure whether this warrants some sort of notice or not, especialy since Krusty's initial edit (which was reverted in the first example) undid the original vandalism (as seen here). I'm just curious to know what others think about this. -Dlarsh^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Common practice, from what I have seen, is that if they revert it then it is not vandalism. However, it is an extremely thin line (especially the examples you have shown). A lot of time it is just someone who is trying to be funny or finding out that they can actually edit the wiki. I cannot say "yes" or "no" for this instance though if I take caution; but I personally believe it would at least warrant a "scold" on their talk page, if not an official warning. –Elliot ^talk 23:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the way I was leaning. I think I'll add a notice on their page, but no "official" warning. Thanks Elliot. -Dlarsh^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"In themselves"

The very last phrase of the article at the moment says "they [harassment and personal attacks] are not considered to be vandalism in themselves." After some research, I found that it may sound more English to say either just themselves or use the idiom in and of themselves. The way it is now is halfway in between and doesn't sound as good as those two would. Here is the entry about the idiom on The Free Dictionary. Zhukant 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It may?

"It may also be somewhat acceptable to fix a typo or misspelling in someone's comments."

It may? Either you can, either you can not fix spelling mistakes. Which of two? --Rigas Papadopoulos • Talk to me • My work • 15:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

See here. Fixing other's posts seems to be a strong subject for you; is it really that important or worthwhile to change another person's words, when we have main namespaces to handle? -- Jplatinum16 19:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)