User:Camyoung54/CVUA

Camyoung54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Once you graduate I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

Good faith and vandalism[edit]

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

A good faith edit is an edit where the editor intends to comply with the rules and culture of Wikipedia however, some part of the edit violates a rule or aspect of culture though not intentionally and is seen as correct in the eyes of the editor. A vandalism edit occurs when a editor intentionally tries to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, such as blanking pages and adding irrelevant or obscure material. Good faith edits usually come from new, inexperienced editors who have not yet learned the ways of Wikipedia and do what seems right in their eyes, they are edits that need to be removed, but it is OK that they were made in the first place. Vandalism edits intentionally try to ruin a page by blanking or adding inappropriate material or blanking pages, and need to be removed, and it is not OK that they were made, as well as the need to caution the editor.

Yes, test edits are the normal thing which we consider good faith edits. However there are warnings available {{subst:uw-test1}} so let the user know that they can use the sandbox instead.

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith

[1] Y
[2] Y
[3] Y
[4] Y Could go either way, but since it's first edit I'd AGF and revert in good faith. Though I would leave the IP the {{subst:uw-error1}} warning.
[5] Y I would actually call this vandalism, it's obvious beyond any possible confusion that it's the CIA so I'd say it's intentional. However it's better to AGF then the other way around.

Vandalism

[6] N Since this is the first edit made by the person I'd be more inclined to assume good faith and call it a test edit rather than an attempt to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia.
[7] Y
[8] Y
[9] Y
[10] Y

Would you please find 2 more of each and add them above? Thanks Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning and reporting[edit]

When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

We warn users in an attempt to let them know that their edits are unhelpful, incorrect, or vandalistic. We give them specific examples of their edits that fit into one of the previous categories to try to get them to stop their inappropriate edits especially in the case of vandalism. If warning does not stop the editors behavior, we resort to blocking the user.

Yes, we warn in the hope that the person will stop disrupting the project.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im warning is given when a editors has a long history of vandalism, or if the user is causing major problems. It is also given if a vandalistic edit is extremely bad and requires immediate attention.

But remember IP address can change regularly so different people may have done the vandalising. There is also {{subst:uw-longterm}} which can be used for a definite static IP or user. 4im warnings are generally used when the vandalism or BLP violation (or so on) are very serious and there is no reason at all to assume good faith.

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Yes, substitution is used when you do not want the template you use to change, such as the editor you are warning wants to delete the warning, it will make sure the warning stays. To use substitution, you place the prefix subst: in front of the warning. For example: {{subst:uw-error1}}.

Yes we use substitution to ensure the template doesn't change. It would change due to someone editing the template itself.

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

If A user who receives a 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again, the user should be reported to the administrators at WP:AIV (Administrator intervention against vandalism) and the user could be blocked if the administrators find it necessary.

If you are looking for information about when and how to report to AIV have a look at the guide.

Please give examples (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.

{{subst:uw-delete1}} - Warns user for removal of content and blanking pages.
{{subst:uw-vandalism1}} - Warns user that edits they have made are vandalism.
{{subst:uw-disruptive1}} - Warns user that edits they have made are disruptive to Wikipedia.

It's important to use the correct warning so the user knows exactly what they have done wrong. This is especially the case when using automated tools.

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily.

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Diff of edit	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Marker's comment (optional)
1	[11]	Undid Vandalism by 72.70.71.190 but in order to do this, I had to revert an edit before it, so in the diff on the left side, it says the most recent edit was from me, but that is because I had to revert a different in edit in order to revert the vandalism edit. User Warning: User_talk:72.70.71.190	Y My apologies, it was vandalism.
2	[12]	User Warning: [13]	Y
3	Reverted multiple edits, here's one: [14]	User Warning: [15] AIV Report: [16] (User was blocked)	Y
4	[17]	User Warning: [18]	Y
5	[19]	User Warning: [20]	This was probably a good faith edit given the user's edit summary. It would have been better to revert it in good faith and leave them a custom message asking them to explain on the article's talk page why "alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase it wrong" and why they removed the whole section, maybe also pointing to WP:BRD as the 'policy' reason you reverted.
6	[21]	User Warning:[22] I know this is their first edit, however I still called it vandalism because it appeared to be deliberate unlike a test edit.
7	[23]	User Warning: [24]
8	[25]	User Warning: [26]
9	[27]	User Warning: [28]
10	[29]	User Warning: [30] gave level 3 warning due to earlier vandalism that IP had not been warned for.
11	[31]	User Warning
12	[32]	User Warning
13	[33]	User Warning
14	[34]	User Warning
15	[35]	User Warning